The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the powers vested with the Registrar under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act and the requirement for compliance with rules of natural justice in society disputes.

R. Gururajan, J.—This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.6.1998 passed in W.P. Nos. 7662-63 of 1996 by the learned Single Judge.

2. The facts of the case are as under:

Sarvajanika Vidya Samsthe and Sri Siddegowda are the Appellants and were the Petitioners before the learned Single Judge. Sarvajanika Vidya Samsthe is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960. It came into existence in the year 1970. There were 13 persons when the society was registered and thereafter 20 members were admitted. They had not paid their subscription fee. Notices were issued in the year 1981 and on 4.10.1981, the defaulters were removed. New members were included. In all, there were 51 members to the society as on 4.10.1981. In the year 1996, 48 persons were members, three members having died. On 26.2.1996, General Body Meeting of the Society was held and new office bearers were elected. As per the bye-law of the society, the General Body consists of 13 persons out of which one of them will be the Head Master of the Institution. 18 persons submitted a petition under Section 25 of the Act to the District Registrar-the first Respondent seeking relief of cancellation of the General Body Meeting and also to remove the Secretary, President and other executive committee members from their respective offices. Notices were issued to the elected members. They appeared and opposed the application. Among 18 persons who were signatories, only 13 persons were members as on 26.2.1996. Seven persons filed affidavits before the Registrar stating that they had not subscribed their signature to the application. They wanted their names to be deleted from the cause list of the petition. The Registrar initiated suo motu proceedings. According to the Petitioners, no issues were framed, no evidence was recorded. On 12.3.1996, the Registrar passed an order declaring that the Annual General Body held on 26.2.1996 was illegal. He directed the society to hold a meeting consisting of 15 persons who according to him were the only genuine members of the society. of these 15 persons, 4 persons had already died. Appellants filed a Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Registrar. After hearing, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. This order is challenged in this appeal.

3. Notice was issued. Respondents have entered appearance.

4. Heard Sri T.N. Raghupathy, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant. He argues that Section 25 did not give any power to the Registrar in terms of the findings of the learned Single Judge. According to the learned Counsel, the power that is available to the Registrar is limited in character. The Registrar cannot annul a meeting in terms of his submissions. He also says that notice as such was not given resulting in denial of opportunity to the parties. He also says that the impugned order is beyond the powers of the Registrar. He would say that the incident of 1981 is sought to be interfered with after long lapse of time. He relies on several judgments.

5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Respondent supports the order.

6. Material on facts would reveal that the Appellant-society was established with a laudable object of establishing educational institution. In the year 1981, 51 persons were admitted as the members of the society. The Annual General Body Meeting was conducted and 51 members were admitted as members on 4.1.1981. The Annual General Body Meeting was also held from time to time. On 2.1.1984, some of the Respondents alleged irregularities and alleged that the society was not functioning properly and hence an Administrator has to be appointed in the matter. An enquiry was held in the year 1992 and thereafter the Registrar dismissed the appeal in 1992. Subsequently, a General Body Meeting was conducted in1995. The General Body Meeting held on 26.2.1995 was challenged by way of an application before the Registrar under Section 25 of the Act. The Registrar of society, after hea