JUDGMENT : Manjive Shukla, J. 1. Heard Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rajendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondents No. 1 to 3 and Sri Prabhakar Awasthi as well as Sri Gautam Baghel, learned counsels appearing for Respondent No. 4. 2. Petitioners through this writ petition have assailed the order dated 30.03.2024 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Mau Nath Bhanjan, District Mau whereby direction has been given to the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh for holding fresh elections of the Committee of Management of the Society under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. 3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondents No. 1 to 3 and Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 4, at the very outset, have raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this writ petition on the ground that the impugned order dated 30.03.2024 has been passed by the Prescribed Authority/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Mau Nath Bhanjan, District Mau under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and against the said order, petitioners have efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under Section 25(1)(d) of the Act of 1860. 4. Facts of the case, as culled out from the writ petition, are that Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad Educational Society, Village, Aadedhi, Post Umarpur, Tehsil Sadar, District Mau is a Society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. 5. The last undisputed elections of the Committee of Management of the Society took place on 17.09.2016 and under the bye-laws of the Society, the term of the Committee of Management of the Society is five years i.e. the elections held on 17.09.2016 were valid up till 16.09.2021. In the elections held on 17.09.2016, Mr. Amit Kumar Singh was elected as President and Mohd. Javed was elected as Secretary of the Committee of Management of the Society. It has been claimed that Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh was inducted as a member of the general body of the Society vide resolution dated 02.10.2020. Mr. Amit Kumar Singh who was elected President in the elections of the Committee of Management of the Society held on 17.09.2016, died on 16.04.2021 and thereafter it has been claimed that Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh was elected/co-opted as President of the Committee of Management of the Society vide its resolution dated 29.04.2021. Mr. Amit Kumar Singh who was elected President in the elections of the Committee of Management of the Society held on 17.09.2016, died on 16.04.2021 and thereafter it has been claimed that Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh was elected/co-opted as President of the Committee of Management of the Society vide its resolution dated 29.04.2021. It has further been claimed that Mohd. Javed in the capacity of Secretary of the Committee of Management of the Society submitted an application on 28.05.2021 along with the minutes of the meeting of the Committee of Management held on 29.4.2021 before the Assistant Registrar and prayed to register the list of the office bearers and members of the Committee of Management of the Society. 6. The Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh vide its order dated 07.06.2021 registered the list of the office bearers and members of the Committee of Management of the Society as contemplated under Section 4(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and in the said list in place of Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh has been shown as President of the Committee of Management of the Society. 7. In the writ petition, it has been claimed that the Committee of Management of the Society vide its resolution dated 04.07.2021 inducted nine more members in the general body of the Society including the Petitioner No. 2, Mr. Gulam Navi and thereafter Mohd. Javed in the capacity of Secretary/Manager submitted an application before the Assistant Registrar on 28.07.2021 for registration of the list of members of the general body of the Society. 8. Since the term of the Committee of Management of the Society was to expire, it has been claimed that fresh elections of the Committee of Management of the Society took place on 12.09.2021 in which Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh was elected as President and Mohd. Javed was elected as Secretary/Manager. Mohd. Javed in the capacity of Secretary/Manager of the Committee of Management of the Society submitted the list of the office bearers and members of the Committee of Management of the Society as well as the list of members of the general body of the Society for registration before the Assistant Registrar and the Assistant Registrar vide its order dated 22.09.2021 registered the aforesaid list. 9. It has also been claimed in the writ petition that Mohd. 9. It has also been claimed in the writ petition that Mohd. Javed submitted his resignation from the post of Secretary/Manager of the Committee of Management of the Society and the Committee of Management of the Society in its meeting held on 02.10.2021 elected/co-opted Mr. Gulam Navi as Secretary/Manager for remaining term of the Committee of Management of the Society. Mr. Gulam Navi submitted an application on 01.11.2021 before the Assistant Registrar and prayed for registration of the changed list of the office-bearers and members of the Committee of Management of the Society. 10. One Ms. Mridula Mishra filed complaint before the Assistant Registrar on 12.11.2021 along with proceedings of the Committee of Management of the Society dated 07.02.2021 and 07.03.2021 and claimed herself to be the President of the Committee of Management of the Society and further claimed that induction and election/co-option of Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh was based on forged documents. The Assistant Registrar vide its order dated 02.06.2022 rejected the claim of Ms. Mridula Mishra and directed for registration of the list of the office bearers and members of the Committee of Management of the Society on the basis of the resolution of the Committee of Management of the Society dated 02.10.2021. 11. The order dated 02.06.2022 passed by the Assistant Registrar was put to challenge by Ms. Mridula Mishra in Writ-C No. 20596 of 2022 and a co-ordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the said writ petition vide order dated 24.08.2022. Thereafter Ms. Mridula Mishra filed Special Appeal No. 614 of 2022 which too was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.11.2022. 12. Mohd. Javed filed a complaint before the Assistant Registrar claiming therein that he has never tendered resignation from the post of Secretary/Manager of the Committee of Management of the Society and further claimed that the applications dated 28.05.2021, 28.07.2021 and 20.09.2021 have been filed before the Assistant Registrar under his forged signatures. He also claimed that Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh has never been inducted as a member of the general body of the Society. On the complaint of Mohd. Javed, the Assistant Registrar issued notice to Mr. He also claimed that Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh has never been inducted as a member of the general body of the Society. On the complaint of Mohd. Javed, the Assistant Registrar issued notice to Mr. Gulam Navi on 03.04.2023 and after hearing all the concerned parties, the Assistant Registrar vide its order dated 28.06.2023 recalled his earlier order dated 02.06.2022 whereby list of the office bearers and members of the Committee of Management of the Society was registered pursuant to resolution dated 02.10.2021 by which alleged resignation of Mohd. Javed was accepted. The Assistant Registrar vide aforesaid order dated 28.06.2023 also declared all the proceedings of the Committee of Management of the Society held on or after 29.04.2021 including the alleged proceeding dated 02.10.2020, whereby Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh has been shown to be inducted as member of the general body of the Society, as forged. The Assistant Registrar passed another order on 14.09.2023 whereby he appointed Tehsildar Ghosi, District Mau as Election Officer to conduct the elections of the Committee of Management of the Society under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. 13. The petitioners challenged the orders dated 28.6.2023 and 14.9.2023 by filing Writ-C No.21962 of 2023 and a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 6.10.2023 allowed the writ petition and further set aside the orders dated 28.6.2023 and 14.9.2023. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 6.10.2023 also issued a direction to the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh to refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act of 1860. Pursuant to the judgment and order dated 6.10.2023 passed in Writ-C No.21962 of 2023, the Assistant Registrar passed an order on 27.10.2023 and referred the dispute raised by Mohd. Javed to the Prescribed Authority for adjudication under Section 25(1) of the Act of 1860. 14. Though the petitioners in Writ-C No.21962 of 2023 did not raise any serious objection in reference of the dispute raised by Mohd. Javed to the Prescribed Authority for adjudication under Section 25(1) of the Act of 1860. 14. Though the petitioners in Writ-C No.21962 of 2023 did not raise any serious objection in reference of the dispute raised by Mohd. Javed to the Prescribed Authority for adjudication under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 but when the Assistant Registrar referred the matter vide order dated 27.10.2023, petitioners filed Writ-C No.42723 of 2023 and challenged the order dated 27.10.2023 on the ground that the dispute referred by the Assistant Registrar had already been adjudicated by the orders passed by this Court in Writ-C No.20596 of 2022, Special Appeal No.614 of 2022 and Writ-C No.21962 of 2023 but this Court vide order dated 31.1.2024, while recording finding that petitioners had agreed that dispute may be decided by the Prescribed Authority, disposed of the writ petition with direction to the Prescribed Authority to decide the dispute of the Committee of Management of the Society within a period of six weeks. 15. In the aforesaid background, the Prescribed Authority has decided the reference dated 27.10.2023 made by the Assistant Registrar under Section 25(1) of the Act of 1860 vide order dated 30.3.2024 wherein it has been held that Mohd. Javed has not tendered resignation from the post of Secretary/Manager of the Society and therefore, the proceedings of the Committee of Management of the Society by which his resignation has been accepted and further proceedings are invalid in the eyes of law. The Prescribed Authority has also held that applications dated 28.05.2021, 28.07.2021 and 20.09.2021 by which various proceedings of the Committee of Management of the Society and the general body of the Society were forwarded to the Assistant Registrar, bear forged signatures of Mohd. Javed. The Prescribed Authority vide order dated 30.3.2024 has also directed the Assistant Registrar to hold fresh elections of the Committee of Management of the Society under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. 16. It is to be noted that during pendency of this writ petition, elections of the Committee of Management of the Society pursuant to the order dated 30.3.2024 have already been conducted. 17. Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that as Mr. Amit Kumar Singh who was elected Secretary/Manager of the Committee of Management of the Society in the elections held on 17.9.2016, died on 16.4.2021, Mr. 17. Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that as Mr. Amit Kumar Singh who was elected Secretary/Manager of the Committee of Management of the Society in the elections held on 17.9.2016, died on 16.4.2021, Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh was elected/co-opted as President vide resolution passed by the Committee of Management of the Society on 29.4.2021 and once the Assistant Registrar vide order dated 7.6.2021 registered the list of the office bearers and the members of the Committee of Management of the Society, there cannot be any occasion for the Assistant Registrar to refer the dispute with respect to the proceedings of the Committee of Management of the Society held on 29.4.2021 to the Prescribed Authority. It has further been submitted that after the term of the Committee of Management of the Society elected on 17.9.2016 ended, fresh elections of the Committee of Management of the Society took place on 12.9.2021 and once Mohd. Javed himself moved an application before the Assistant Registrar and on his application the list of the office bearers and the members of the Committee of Management of the Society has been registered by the Assistant Registrar, the question does not arise before the Assistant Registrar to refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 27.10.2023. 18. Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has argued that once Mohd. Javed tendered his resignation which was accepted by the Committee of Management of the Society on 2.10.2021 and further Mr. Gulam Navi was elected/co-opted as Secretary/Manager for remaining term of the Committee of Management of the Society, the Assistant Registrar while referring the dispute to the Prescribed Authority has conducted himself in an absolutely arbitrary manner. 19. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has vehemently argued that Ms. Mridula Mishra filed a complaint before the Assistant Registrar on 12.11.2021 claiming therein that she is the President of the Committee of Management of the Society and election/co-option of Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh as Present and further proceedings are forged. Since the complaint filed by Ms. 19. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has vehemently argued that Ms. Mridula Mishra filed a complaint before the Assistant Registrar on 12.11.2021 claiming therein that she is the President of the Committee of Management of the Society and election/co-option of Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh as Present and further proceedings are forged. Since the complaint filed by Ms. Mridula Mishra was rejected by the Assistant Registrar vide order dated 2.6.2022 and further she was not granted any relief by this Court in Writ-C No.20596 of 2022 and Special Appeal No.614 of 2022 therefore, there cannot be any occasion for the Assistant Registrar to re-open the entire issue on the complaint of Mohd. Javed and to refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority therefore, the order dated 30.3.2024 passed by the Prescribed Authority on its face is erroneous. 20. Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has argued that once a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgment and order dated 24.8.2022 passed in Writ-C No.20596 of 2022 has negated the claim of Ms. Mridula Mishra and thereby has affirmed the proceedings of the Committee of Management of the Society held on 29.04.2021, elections held on 12.9.2021 and proceedings of the Committee of Management of the Society held on 2.10.2021 and further the said judgment dated 24.8.2022 has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment rendered on 30.11.2022 passed in Special Appeal No.614 of 2022, it was not open for the Assistant Registrar to take a different view in the matter and to refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority and further it was also not open for the Prescribed Authority to take a different view contrary to the view taken in the aforesaid judgments as such, the order dated 30.3.2024 passed by the Prescribed Authority cannot sustain in the eyes of law. It has also been argued from the side of the petitioners that this Court while passing the order dated 6.10.2023 has recorded a finding that the claim raised by Mohd. Javed is not sustainable and therefore, the consequential reference made vide order dated 27.10.2023 and the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 30.3.2024 allowing the claim of Mohd. Javed cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 21. Javed is not sustainable and therefore, the consequential reference made vide order dated 27.10.2023 and the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 30.3.2024 allowing the claim of Mohd. Javed cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 21. Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners in support of his submissions has relied on a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hope Plantations Ltd. Vs. Taluk Land Board, Peermade and another, (1999) 5 SCC 590 and has submitted that in the said judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when the proceedings have attained finality, parties are bound by the judgment and are estopped from questioning it. He further submits that the decisions pronounced by courts of competent jurisdiction should be final unless they are modified or reversed by the appellate forum. 22. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has further placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Capt. Dushyant Somal vs. Smt. Sushma Somal and another, 1981 (2) SCC 977 wherein it has been held that where what is complained of is an impudent disregard of an order of a Court, the fact certainly cries out that a prerogative writ shall issue and thus, has submitted that in the present case once it is apparent from the record of the case that the order dated 30.3.2024 passed by the Prescribed Authority is contrary to the orders passed in Writ-C No.20596 of 2022, Special Appeal No.614 of 2022 and Writ-C No.21962 of 2023, the statutory remedy of appeal available against the order dated 30.3.2024 shall not be an impediment for this Court in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 23. On the other hand, Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 submits that in earlier rounds of litigation i.e. in Writ-C No.20596 of 2022, Special Appeal No.614 of 2022 and Writ-C No.21962 of 2023, the claim raised by Mohd. Javed was not before this Court and therefore, in the judgments and orders passed in Writ-C No. 20596 of 2022, Special Appeal No.614 of 2022 and Writ-C No.21962 of 2023, there is no adjudication made by this Court in respect of the claim of Mohd. Javed was not before this Court and therefore, in the judgments and orders passed in Writ-C No. 20596 of 2022, Special Appeal No.614 of 2022 and Writ-C No.21962 of 2023, there is no adjudication made by this Court in respect of the claim of Mohd. Javed that he never tendered resignation and forged proceedings of the Committee of Management of the Society were filed before the Assistant Registrar by making his forged signatures on the applications therefore, the said judgments cannot come in the way of adjudication over the claim of Mohd. Javed as such, the Assistant Registrar while referring the dispute vide order dated 27.10.2023 and the Prescribed Authority while deciding the dispute vide order dated 30.3.2024 has not committed any error. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 that in earlier rounds of litigation i.e. in Writ-C No.20596 of 2022, Special Appeal No.614 of 2022 and Writ-C No.21962 of 2023, the claim of Ms. Mridula Mishra has been decided and it has been found that her claim is not sustainable in the eyes of law but so far as the claim raised by Mohd. Javed that he never tendered resignation and his signatures on the applications filed before the Assistant Registrar are forged, is concerned, that has never been decided by this Court. 24. Mr. Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 has further argued that so far as the judgment and order dated 6.10.2023 passed by this Court in Writ-C No.21962 of 2023 is concerned, the Court while passing the order dated 6.10.2023 has made a prima facie observation that Mohd. Javed was the Secretary/Manager of the Committee of Management of the Society since 2016 therefore, it cannot give rise to a presumption that he had no knowledge of the proceedings of Writ-C No.20596 of 2022 and Special Appeal No.614 of 2022 but at the same time, accepted that there exists a dispute raised by Mohd. Javed which needs to be adjudicated by the Prescribed Authority and therefore, the Court directed the Assistant Registrar to refer the dispute raised by Mohd. Javed to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act of 1860. The present petitioners also did not raise any objection regarding reference of the dispute before the Prescribed Authority therefore, it is patently manifest that the dispute raised by Mohd. Javed to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act of 1860. The present petitioners also did not raise any objection regarding reference of the dispute before the Prescribed Authority therefore, it is patently manifest that the dispute raised by Mohd. Javed has not been decided by this Court at any point of time. 25. It has further been argued by Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 that when the dispute raised by Mohd. Javed was referred by the Assistant Registrar vide order dated 27.10.2023 to the Prescribed Authority, the petitioners challenged the order dated 27.10.2023 by filing Writ-C No.42723 of 2023 wherein they took categorical ground that once the issue has been decided by this Court in earlier rounds of litigation, there was no occasion for the Assistant Registrar to refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority but the grounds raised by the petitioners did not find favour of the Court therefore, petitioners ultimately agreed that a direction may be issued to the Prescribed Authority for deciding the dispute expeditiously and once petitioners themselves agreed for reference of the dispute to the Prescribed Authority, now they cannot be allowed to say that the dispute could not have been decided by the Prescribed Authority. 26. Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 has strenuously argued that once there is no adjudication by this Court over the dispute raised by Mohd. Javed and petitioners themselves agreed that the dispute raised by Mohd. Javed may be decided by the Prescribed Authority, the petitioners cannot be permitted to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal available under Section 25(1)(d) of the Act of 1860 against the impugned order dated 30.3.2024 therefore, this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. 27. I have considered the rival arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 28. Since this Court is proceeding to decide the issue of maintainability of this writ petition therefore, the facts of the case are not being repeated here. 29. The impugned order dated 30.3.2024 has been passed by the Prescribed Authority/ Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Mau Nath Bhanjan, District Mau under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. 28. Since this Court is proceeding to decide the issue of maintainability of this writ petition therefore, the facts of the case are not being repeated here. 29. The impugned order dated 30.3.2024 has been passed by the Prescribed Authority/ Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Mau Nath Bhanjan, District Mau under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Section 25(1)(d) of the Act of 1860 provides that any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act of 1860 can file an appeal before the Commissioner of concerned region. For ready reference, Section 25(1) of the Act of 1860 is extracted as under:- “25. Dispute regarding election of office-bearers.—(1) The prescribed authority may, on a reference made to it by the Registrar or by at least one-fourth of the members of a society registered in Haryana, meet and decide in a summary manner any doubt or dispute in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office-bearer of such society, and may pass such orders in respect thereof as it deems fit: [Provided that the election of an office-bearer shall be set aside where the prescribed authority is satisfied— (a) that any corrupt has been committed by such office-bearer; or (b) that the nomination of any candidate has been improperly rejected; or (c) that the result of the election insofar as it concerns to such office -bearer has been materially affected by the improper acceptance of any nomination or by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void or by any non-compliance with the provisions of any rules of the Society. (d) An appeal against an order made under this sub-section may be preferred to the Commissioner of the Division in whose jurisdiction the headquarter of the Society lies, within one month from the date of communication of such order: Provided that the appellate authority may admit an appeal after the expiry of such period if the appellant satisfies the appellate authority that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within such period.” 30. The petitioners, to come out from the rigors of availability of statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order and to maintain this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have taken ground that while deciding the claim raised by Ms. The petitioners, to come out from the rigors of availability of statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order and to maintain this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have taken ground that while deciding the claim raised by Ms. Mridula Mishra in Writ-C No.20596 of 2022 and Special Appeal No.614 of 2022 this Court had already upheld the validity of the resolutions in question passed by the Committee of Management of the Society but the dispute raised by Mohd. Javed has now been decided by the Prescribed Authority in his favour by the impugned order dated 30.3.2024 which is in the teeth of the judgments and orders passed in Writ-C No.20596 of 2022, Special Appeal No.614 of 2022 and Writ-C No.21962 of 2023 therefore, the petitioners cannot be relegated to the statutory remedy of appeal and this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. 31. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its judgment rendered in the case of Hope Plantations Ltd. Vs. Taluk Land Board, Peermade and another, (1999) 5 SCC 590 has held that the important consideration of public policy is that the decisions pronounced by Courts of competent jurisdiction should be final unless they are modified or reversed by the appellate forum and no one should be made to face the same kind of litigation twice. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hope Plantations Ltd. (supra) are extracted as under:- “17. In Devilal Modi, the question before this Court was whether the principle of constructive res judicata could be invoked against writ petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appellant had been assessed to sales-tax for the year 1957-58 under Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950. He challenged the validity of the order of assessment by a writ petition which was dismissed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The Appellant’s appeal by special leave to this Court was also dismissed. At the hearing of the appeal before this Court, appellant sought to raise two additional points, but he was not permitted to do so on the ground that they had not been specified in the writ petition filed before the High Court and had not been raised at an early stage. At the hearing of the appeal before this Court, appellant sought to raise two additional points, but he was not permitted to do so on the ground that they had not been specified in the writ petition filed before the High Court and had not been raised at an early stage. On those points which were not allowed to be raised, the appellant filed another writ petition in the High Court challenging the validity of the same very assessment for the year 1957-58. The High Court considered the merits of the additional grounds urged by the appellant but rejected them. The Appellant again came to this Court. This Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that principle of constructive res judicata was applicable in the circumstances and referred to its earlier decision in Daryao & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh holding that the general principle underlying the doctrine of res judicata i.e. ultimately based on considerations of public policy. One important consideration of public policy is that the decisions pronounced by courts of competent jurisdiction should be final, unless they are modified or reversed by appellate authorities; and the other principle is that no one should be made to face the same kind of litigation twice over, because such a process would be contrary to considerations of fair play and justice. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 26. It is settled law that principles of estoppel and res judicata are based on public policy and justice. Doctrine of res judicata is often treated as a branch of the law of estoppel though these two doctrines differ in some essential particulars. Rule of res judicata prevents the parties to a judicial determination from litigating the same question over again even though the determination may even be demonstratedly wrong. When the proceedings have attained finality, parties are bound by the judgment and are estopped from questioning it. They cannot litigate again on the same cause of action nor can they litigate any issue which was necessary for decision in the earlier litigation. These two aspects are 'cause of action estoppel' and 'issue estoppel'. These two terms are of common law origin. Again once an issue has been finally determined, parties cannot subsequently in the same suit advance arguments or adduce further evidence directed to showing that the issue was wrongly determined. These two aspects are 'cause of action estoppel' and 'issue estoppel'. These two terms are of common law origin. Again once an issue has been finally determined, parties cannot subsequently in the same suit advance arguments or adduce further evidence directed to showing that the issue was wrongly determined. their only remedy is to approach the higher forum if available. the determination of the issue between the parties gives rise to as noted above, an issue estoppel. It operates in any subsequent proceedings in the same suit in which the issue had been determined. It also operates in subsequent suits between the same parties in which the same issue arises. Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure contains provisions of res judicata but these are not exhaustive of the general doctrine of res judicata. Legal principles of estoppel and res judicata are equally applicable in proceedings before administrative authorities as they are based on public policy and justice.” 32. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its judgment rendered in the case of Capt. Dushyant Somal vs. Smt. Sushma Somal and another, 1981 (2) SCC 977 has held that where, what is complained of, is an impudent disregard of an order of a Court, the fact certainly cries out that a prerogative writ shall issue. The relevant paragraph of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Capt. Dushyant Somal (supra) is extracted as under:- “7. It was argued that the wife had alternate remedies under the Guardian and Wards Act and the CrPC and so a Writ should not have been issued. True, alternate remedy ordinarily inhibits a prerogative writ. But it is not an impassable hurdle. Where what is complained of is an impudent disregard of an order of a Court, the fact certainly cries out that a prerogative writ shall issue. In regard to the sentence, instead of the sentence imposed by the High Court, we substitute a sentence of three months, simple imprisonment and a fine of Rupees Five hundred. The sentence of imprisonment or such part of it as may not have been served will stand remitted on the appellant-petitioner producing the child in the High Court. With this modification in the matter of sentence, the appeal and the Special Leave Petition are dismissed. The sentence of imprisonment or such part of it as may not have been served will stand remitted on the appellant-petitioner producing the child in the High Court. With this modification in the matter of sentence, the appeal and the Special Leave Petition are dismissed. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 677/81 is dismissed as we are not satisfied that it is a fit case for laying a complaint. 33. In the aforesaid judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court it had been categorically held that once an issue had been adjudicated by the Court, then same parties cannot be allowed to face litigation regarding the same issue again and further if any authority while passing the order has taken a different view to that of the view settled by the Court, then against the said order writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall be maintainable and the writ petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy against the said order. 34. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, now this Court proceeds to analyse as to whether dispute raised by Mohd. Javed vide his complaint dated 28.3.2023, before the Assistant Registrar, has been adjudicated by this Court while deciding Writ-C No.20596 of 2022, Special Appeal No.614 of 2022 and Writ-C No.21962 of 2023. 35. It is to be noted in categorical terms that the dispute raised by Mohd. Javed before the Assistant Registrar was that he neither tendered resignation from the post of Secretary/Manager of the Society nor he ever filed any application before the Assistant Registrar and has submitted proceedings of the Committee of Management of the Society and proceedings of general body of the Society on or after 24.9.2021. Mohd. Javed in his complaint has categorically submitted that resignation under his forged signatures and certain applications under his forged signatures have been presented before the Assistant Registrar and on that basis, an attempt has been made by certain persons to take over the control of the Society. 36. This Court finds that Ms. Mridula Mishra filed an application on 12.11.2021 before the Assistant Registrar annexing therewith the minutes of the meeting of the Committee of Management of the Society held on 7.2.2021 and 7.3.2021 and thereby she claimed that election/co-option of Mr. 36. This Court finds that Ms. Mridula Mishra filed an application on 12.11.2021 before the Assistant Registrar annexing therewith the minutes of the meeting of the Committee of Management of the Society held on 7.2.2021 and 7.3.2021 and thereby she claimed that election/co-option of Mr. Ajit Kumar Sigh as President of the Society is based on forged documents and actually she is the President of the Society. Since the Assistant Registrar did not recognize the claim raised by Ms. Mridula Mishra and did not refer the election dispute to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act of 1860, she filed Writ-C No.20596 of 2022 and a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.8.2022 had held that since the claim raised by Ms. Mridula Mishra on its face is not a valid claim therefore, the Assistant Registrar was not under obligation to refer the election dispute under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 to the Prescribed Authority for adjudication. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment and order dated 24.8.2022 passed by this Court are extracted as under:- “11. Now coming to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner No. 2, on the merits, the Court finds that the Assistant Registrar in the impugned order has clearly recorded the factum that arguments of the parties were heard on 12.5.2022 and the judgment was reserved. It was agreed between the parties that they would submit written submissions and original documents by 20.5.2022. In pursuance to the order dated 12.5.2022, Shri Gulam Nabhi submitted the original documents pertaining to the proceedings while Smt. Mridula Mishra failed to produce any original documents and only submitted her written arguments. The Court is not impressed with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent No. 1 even after reserving the judgment, after hearing the parties on 12.5.2022 relied upon documents submitted by Gulam Nabhi on 20.5.2022 inasmuch as it had been agreed between the parties to do so. The respondent No. 1 had permitted the original records to be filed. Shri Gulam Nabhi filed the original records, but Smt. Mridula Mishra, petitioner No. 2 failed to filed any original documents and pleaded that the documents had been stolen as an after thought. The respondent No. 1 had permitted the original records to be filed. Shri Gulam Nabhi filed the original records, but Smt. Mridula Mishra, petitioner No. 2 failed to filed any original documents and pleaded that the documents had been stolen as an after thought. The case law relied upon by the learned counsel reported in Ramadhar Shashtri's case (supra) is clearly distinguishable on facts as in that case the Deputy Director permitted both parties to file documents after hearing the case on his own, but in the case at hand, the parties had themselves agreed to submit the original records by a particular date. The impugned order cannot be said to have been passed in violation of principal of natural justice as ample equal opportunity had been given to the petitioner No. 2 to establish her case. 12. It has also been argued that the impugned order dated 2.6.2022 passed by the Assistant Registrar/respondent No. 1 is without jurisdiction inasmuch as instead of referring the rival claims set up before him under Section 25 (I) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the Assistant Registrar proceeded to adjudicate the doubt or dispute with regard to the office bearers of the Society. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court reported in Gram Shiksha Sudhar Samiti's case (supra). There can be no quarrel about the law laid down by Their Lordships in the decision reported in Gram Shiksha Sudhar Samiti's case (supra). However, the Court is of the opinion that only genuine rival claim / disputes or doubts about the office bearers of the Society are required to be referred for adjudication by Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (i) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits while referring the dispute is not to function as a post office/rubber stamp. Sufficient, prima facie, material must be produced before the Registrar before he can validly exercise his jurisdiction of referring the dispute. 13. Sufficient, prima facie, material must be produced before the Registrar before he can validly exercise his jurisdiction of referring the dispute. 13. In the case at hand, the Assistant Registrar while, prima facie, considering the existence of a bona fide dispute regarding the office bearers of the Society has recorded in his order that in the typed copy of the proceedings submitted along with her application / objection dated 12.11.2021, the petitioner No. 2 Smt. Mridula Mishra, the details of the number of members of present are not mentioned. It has also not been mentioned as to who convened the meeting of the General Body and who informed the members. The said aspect has neither been clarified nor any evidence has been filed in support thereof. In the absence of proof of convening the meeting as per the registered bye laws of the Society, the proceedings submitted by Smt. Mridula Mishra appears to be doubtful. Besides the above, the Assistant Registrar has in its order recorded the factum that in respect of the meeting of the General Body on 3.10.2021 in which the vacant post of the President Shri Amit Kumar Singh has been filled up by Smt. Mridula Mishra. Much prior to the said date on 15.4.2021, the President Shri Amit Kumar Singh is stated to have expired and in terms of Rule 10, the then Manager Mohd. Javed was authorized to convene the meeting of the General Body on 3.10.2021 and send information to the members. No statement has been made by Smt. Mridula Mishra that the meeting had been convened by Mohd. Javed nor any document to that effect has been presented. In contrast to the above, much before the submission of the proceedings on 12.11.2021 i.e. 28.5.2021, the proceedings of filling the casual vacancy of the post of President has been submitted by Mr. Mohd. Javed on 29.4.2021. The Assistant Registrar has on this basis returned a finding that the meeting of the General Body convened on 3.10.2021 was convened unauthorizedly and is void since the beginning. Mohd. Javed on 29.4.2021. The Assistant Registrar has on this basis returned a finding that the meeting of the General Body convened on 3.10.2021 was convened unauthorizedly and is void since the beginning. In contract to the above, the proceedings presented by Shri Gulam Nabhi and available in the office file have been found to confirm to the original records and as per the approved bye laws, the Assistant Registrar thus concluded that the application/objection dated 12.11.2021 submitted by the petitioner No. 2 Smt. Mridula Mishra as President and the proceedings attached with the objections are not found in accordance with the registered bye laws of the Society. In substance the Assistant Registrar has found that the rival claim set up by the petitioner No. 2 Smt. Mridula Mishra is not bona fide and accordingly has declined to refer the dispute to the prescribed authority under Section 25 (I) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and has ordered for proceeding under Section 4 (1) of the Act in respect of the proceedings submitted by Gulam Nabhi. 14. The Court finds no error in the view taken by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits in refusing to refer the rival disputes for adjudication to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (I) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 so as to warrant any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The view of the Assistant Registrar is in consonance with the ratio of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Committee of Management, Rashtriya Junior High School (Society), Babhaniyaon, District Jaunpur versus The Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi Region, Varanasi and others, 2005 (61) ALR 74 decided on 11.8.2005. The relevant paragraph 4 of the aforesaid decision is being reproduced hereunder:- "4. It is the standard law that if any bona fide dispute as to two rival Committees of Managements is shown to be in existence to the Registrar or Assistant Registrar, a reference by him of the dispute to the Prescribed Authority follows as a matter of course. But a bona fide dispute does come into existence merely because one member, even if he is a founder member, chooses simply to he has say or assert that he has a rival Committee and therefore, a bona fide dispute as to Management exists. But a bona fide dispute does come into existence merely because one member, even if he is a founder member, chooses simply to he has say or assert that he has a rival Committee and therefore, a bona fide dispute as to Management exists. Sufficient prima facie material must be produced before the Registrar before he can validly exercise his jurisdiction of referring the dispute. He must, simply put, be satisfied that there is something to refer and he is not merely sending litigations before the Prescribed Authority, without there being even a shadow of real cause for litigation." 15. In view of the above, the writ petition lacks merit. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 37. This Court finds that learned Single Judge while deciding Writ-C No.20596 of 2022 has not made any adjudication regarding the dispute raised by Mohd. Javed as in the entire order dated 24.8.2022 there is no finding as to whether Mohd. Javed ever tendered resignation from the post of Secretary/Manager of the Committee of Management of the Society and there is also no finding as to whether signatures on the alleged resignation and on the alleged applications are of Mohd. Javed. Learned Single Judge had decided the issues involved in Writ-C No.20596 of 2022 viz-a-viz the claim of Ms. Mridula Mishra and therefore, in no way it can be said that the said judgment had decided the dispute raised by Mohd. Javed. 38. Ms. Mridula Mishra challenged the order dated 24.8.2022 passed by this Court in Writ-C No.20596 of 2022 by filing Special Appeal No.614 of 2022 and the Division Bench of this Court again decided the entire issue viz-a-viz the claim raised by Ms. Mridula Mishra and dismissed the special appeal vide judgment and order dated 30.11.2022. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment and order dated 30.11.2022 are extracted as under:- “We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and have perused the record. The facts which we have noticed above reflect that the last election as regards which there exist no dispute was held on 17.9.2016, returning Amit Singh as President and Mohd. Javed as Secretary. On 16.4.2021 Amit Singh died. The respondents set up a meeting dated 29.04.2021 showing election of Ajit Kumar as President for the remainder period, which was to expire within 5 years starting from 17.09.2016 or from the date of its recognition. Javed as Secretary. On 16.4.2021 Amit Singh died. The respondents set up a meeting dated 29.04.2021 showing election of Ajit Kumar as President for the remainder period, which was to expire within 5 years starting from 17.09.2016 or from the date of its recognition. The minutes of the meeting dated 29.04.2021 along with the list of office bearers was submitted for registration and that list was accepted on 07.06.2021 by the Assistant Registrar while exercising his power under Section 4(1) of the 1860 Act. The writ petitioner set up her claim questioning the entire proceeding in the month of November 2021 and to support her claim she set up a resolution, dated 03.10.2021, electing her as President in lieu of death of Amit Singh. In that claim, there was no specific prayer to recall the order, dated 07.06.2021, accepting the list of office bearers. In such circumstances, when the replacement of deceased Amit Singh by the writ petitioner Mridula Mishra was itself in the teeth of the bye-laws of the Society inasmuch as replacement could be only for the remainder term, which had already expired, and there being no prayer questioning the registration of the office-bearers on 07.06.2021, the Assistant Registrar was justified in finding the claim of the petitioner as not bonafide. For the reasons above, we do not find a good reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Dismissal of the appeal as well as of the writ petition shall be without prejudice to the right of the writ petitioners to take recourse to other alternative remedies.” 39. This Court finds that even the Division Bench of this Court while dismissing Special Appeal No.614 of 2022 vide judgment and order dated 30.11.2022 has not adjudicated over the dispute raised by Mohd. Javed as the said dispute is based on the genuineness of the signatures of Mohd. Javed on the alleged resignation and also genuineness of his signatures on the alleged applications therefore, there is no hesitation for this Court to record the finding in categorical terms that judgments and orders passed in Writ-C No.20596 of 2022 and Special Appeal No.614 of 2022 only decide the issues raised therein viz-a-viz the claim of Ms. Mridula Mishra and do not decide the issues viz-a-viz the dispute raised by Mohd. Javed. 40. The claim raised by Mohd. Mridula Mishra and do not decide the issues viz-a-viz the dispute raised by Mohd. Javed. 40. The claim raised by Mohd. Javed was accepted by the Assistant Registrar by passing orders dated 28.6.2023 and 14.9.2023 whereby fresh elections were directed to be held under Section 25(2) of the Act of 1860. The petitioners challenged the said orders dated 28.6.2023 and 14.9.2023 by filing Writ-C No.21962 of 2023 which has been allowed vide judgment and order dated 6.10.2023 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Vide judgment and order dated 6.10.2023, this Court had set aside the orders dated 28.6.2023 and 14.9.2023 with a direction to the Assistant Registrar to refer the dispute raised by Mohd. Javed to the Prescribed Authority for adjudication under Section 25(1) of the Act of 1860. The Court in its order dated 6.10.2023 had also recorded a finding that petitioners have no serious objection if the dispute raised by Mohd. Javed is referred by the Assistant Registrar to the Prescribed Authority for decision on merits. The learned Single Judge while issuing direction to the Assistant Registrar to refer the dispute raised by Mohd. Javed to the Prescribed Authority had also made few observations regarding claim of Mohd. Javed and has deliberately used word ‘prima facie’. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment and order dated 6.10.2023 are extracted as under:- “10. There being some factual dispute in relation to resignation tendered by Mohd. Javed, however, after perusing the order impugned, I find that though as per the decision of Co-ordinate Bench as well as Division Bench dismissing the claim set up by Mridula Mishra in relation to the enrollment of new member Ajit Kumar Singh and further proceedings culminated into the decision dated 02.06.2022, ultimately, merged into the decisions of this Court, re-opening of the closed issue at the instance of Mohd. Javed in the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly when, he claimed himself to be continuing as Secretary/ Manager since 2016 onwards, prima facie, cannot give rise to a presumption that he had no knowledge of the proceedings of Writ Petition and Special Appeal pressed at the behest of allegedly elected President Mridula Mishra. The Assistant Registrar, though has referred to the decisions of this Court, in the discussion/finding part he has not recorded any finding as to the effect of the orders passed by this Court. 11. The Assistant Registrar, though has referred to the decisions of this Court, in the discussion/finding part he has not recorded any finding as to the effect of the orders passed by this Court. 11. In the opinion of the Court, the decision making process adopted by the Assistant Registrar suffers from serious infirmities and, therefore, matter requires consideration. 12. When the Court proceeded to pass an interim order in the present case, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 submits that there being serious election dispute as well as continuance of office bearership covered by Section 25(1) of the Act, 1860 and the Competent Authority has to examine the entire things, the matter may be referred to the Prescribed Authority. He has also referred to the identical observations made by the Co-ordinate Bench and Division Bench of this Court in the earlier round of litigation. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners has no serious objection to this submission, however, he submits that since election programme has been notified under the consequential order impugned, both the orders may be set aside. 14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the orders impugned cannot sustain in view of upholding of the ultimate decision dated 02.06.2022 upto Division Bench of this Court. 15. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 16. The order dated 28.06.2023 (impugned with the writ petition) and the order dated 14.09.2023 (impugned through the amendment application) passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh as well as election schedule notified pursuant thereto are hereby set aside. 17. The Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh (respondent no.2) is directed to refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act, 1860.” 41. This Court finds that learned Single Judge vide its order dated 6.10.2023 passed in Writ-C No.21962 of 2023 has not made any final adjudication regarding the dispute raised by Mohd. Javed and has made only prima facie observations in paragraph 10 and when the said observations are seen in the light of direction issued by the learned Single Judge to the Assistant Registrar for referring the matter to the Prescribed Authority, it can be easily inferred that the learned Single Judge was of the view that the dispute raised by Mohd. Javed has to be decided by the Prescribed Authority. 42. Javed has to be decided by the Prescribed Authority. 42. Pursuant to the order dated 6.10.2023 passed by this Court in Writ-C No.21962 of 2023, the dispute raised by Mohd. Javed was referred by the Assistant Registrar to the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 27.10.2023 for adjudication under Section 25(1) of the Act of 1860. Petitioners again challenged the order dated 27.10.2023 by filing Writ-C No.42723 of 2023 and there they took categorical ground that reference made vide order dated 27.10.2023 is in the teeth of judgments and orders passed in Writ-C No.20596 of 2022, Special Appeal No.614 of 2022 and Writ-C No.21962 of 2023 but the learned Single Judge of this Court did not find any apparent infirmity in the order dated 27.10.2023 and ultimately petitioners also agreed that a direction may be issued to the Prescribed Authority to decide the reference in a time bound manner and therefore, the learned Single Judge vide order dated 31.1.2024 issued direction for expeditious disposal over the reference by the Prescribed Authority. 43. Without making any comment on the merits of the claim of Mohd. Javed and the order dated 30.3.2024 passed by the Prescribed Authority, this Court finds that there is no final adjudication viz-a-viz the dispute raised by Mohd. Javed in the judgments and orders passed in Writ-C No.20596 of 2022, Special Appeal No.614 of 2022 and Writ-C No.21962 of 2023. Even further petitioners themselves, twice i.e. at the time of passing of the judgment and order dated 6.10.2023 in Writ-C No.21962 of 2023 and judgment and order dated 31.1.2024 in Writ-C No.42723 of 2023 had agreed that dispute raised by Mohd. Javed may be decided by the Prescribed Authority. 44. Once this Court is of the view that dispute raised by Mohd. Javed has not been decided by this Court in earlier rounds of litigation and petitioners themselves agreed that dispute raised by Mohd. Javed may be decided by the Prescribed Authority, now it is not open for them to urge before this Court that they may be allowed to bypass the remedy of statutory appeal available under Section 25(1)(d) of the Act of 1860 against the impugned order dated 30.3.2024 on the ground that the impugned order dated 30.3.2024 passed by the Prescribed Authority is contrary to decisions rendered by this Court in earlier rounds of litigation. 45. 45. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is dismissed on the ground of statutory remedy of appeal available to the petitioners under Section 25(1)(d) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. 46. Since the petitioners against the impugned order dated 30.3.2024 had approached this Court by filing this writ petition on 13.4.2024 and this writ petition remained pending for a quite some time therefore, it is provided that if petitioners file the statutory appeal under Section 25(1)(d) of the Act of 1860 within three weeks from today, the appellate authority shall hear and decide the appeal on merits and shall make endeavour to decide the appeal within three months from the date of its filing. 47. Since during pendency of this writ petition, pursuant to the impugned order dated 30.3.2024 elections of the Committee of Management of the Society have already taken place therefore, the elections held pursuant to the order dated 30.3.2024 shall abide by the decision in the appeal.