JUDGMENT

K. RAMASWAMY, J.- M.L.S. Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Reewan (Sandalpur), District Kanpur Dehat was established by a Committee duly constituted under the Societies Registration Act, 1960. The society has been obtaining renewal from the Assistant Registrar from time to time. Ram Autar Shukla while working as a Manager of the institution, the term of the office of the Committee was to be renewed for 5 years from 5-10-1990. There was a dispute as to who will represent the society. The petitioner Ram Autar claimed that he was duly elected as a Manager of the Committee and he was entitled to make an application for renewal, while the case of the respondent was that he was entitled to represent the society as a Manager. Admittedly, the respondent made an application and had obtained orders from the Assistant Registrar for his functioning as a Manager. The District Inspector of Schools on 8-5-1991 recognised the petitioner as a Manager of the Committee and approved the list of office-bearers. The Assistant Registrar issued show-cause notice to the respondent, on an application made by the petitioner, that the respondent had fraudulently fabricated the records and obtained the order. After service of the show-cause notice on 19-2-1991, though the respondent sought time to file the counter, even after the date was given for filing an affidavit, it would appear that he did not do the same nor has given an explanation. Therefore, the Assistant Registrar passed an order on 23-2-1991 cancelling the certificate dated 12-10-1990 recognising the respondent as a Manager. He recorded the finding that the renewal was obtained by playing fraud and misrepresentation of facts. On appeal filed by respondent, it was ultimately confirmed by the Commissioner by his proceedings dated 16-9-1991. The Writ Petition No. 2111 of 1991 filed by the respondent was allowed by the High Court of Allahabad and the orders quashed. The petitioner filed the above SLP impleading the officials and the respondents as No. 3 in the SLP. After issuing notice on 2-12-1991 and hearing both the counsel, this Court by order dated 11-5-1992, stayed the operation of the judgment of the High Court. On 24-11-1992 when it was brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner was not allowed to function pursuant to the orders passed by this Court on 11-5-1992, due to an order dated 6-6-1992 cancelling the order of stay dated 11-5-1992, a Bench of three Judges consisting of us and Brother Justice V. Ramaswami prima facie found that the order dated 9-6-1992 was a forged document for the reason that neither Justice T.K. Thommen nor Justice K.J. Reddy who were parties to the original order of stay, were the vacation Judges. Therefore, the cancellation order of the stay by the same learned Judges on 9-6-1992 would not arise. Accordingly while confirming the order of stay made by this Court dated 11-5-1992, we directed the functionaries to permit the petitioner to continue as a Manager and directed the Registrar General to hold an enquiry as to who had committed the forgery of the order dated 9-6-1992. The Registrar confirmed in his proceeding dated 19-1-1993 that the order dated 9-6-1992 was a forged order and there is a conflict as to who had committed the forgery. Therefore, he reported and sought for directions that "in view of the directions of the Honble Court dated 24-11-1992 for such action as the Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case". Thereafter we called for the records and notice was issued to the respondents. We directed the District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Dehat to be present pursuant to which she was present and produced the records and she was also directed to file an affidavit.

2. In the affidavit filed by the respondent he stated "that the answering respondent has no knowledge of the order dated 9-6-1992 allegedly passed by this Honble Court. He has neither filed the said order before the District Inspector of Schools nor he fabricated