The court emphasized that fraud vitiates proceedings and that the authority has the power to recall benefits obtained through fraud, even without applying the principles of natural justice.

( 1 ) CHALLENGE in this petition is the order dated 27-6-2002 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 1 in exercise of powers as conferred under S. 25 (2) of the Societies Registration Act for holding elections to elect office bearers of the society.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the parties have been heard at admission stage.

( 3 ) THERE is a society know as Shiksha Prasad Samiti registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 at Mohammadabad Gohna, District Mau. It has its registered bye laws which govern the management of the society. Under the bye laws the terms of the committee of management of the society is provided. The aforesaid society runs an institution know as National Inter College, Mohammadabad Gohna, district Mau. It is claimed that renewal of the society has taken place for a period of five years w. e. f. 10-10-2000. It appears that on 6-11-2001 respondent No. 2 made a complaint before the Deputy Registrar Firms Societies and Chits to the effect that the petitioner has obtained the renewal certificate by placing forged papers and incorrect list of members. It is in pursuance of the aforesaid complaint made by the respondent No. 2 the matter was examined with the result the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent No. 1, which is the subject matter of challenge before this court, in this petition.

( 4 ) SRI S. D. Shukla, learned Advocate who appears on behalf of the petitioner submits that respondent No. 1 has passed the impugned order without affording adequate opportunity in the matter. It has been further submitted that the petitioner lodged protest before the Registrar U. P. , Lucknow directing the transfer of the matter before some other authority upon which no orders were passed and in spite thereof respondent No. 1 has taken the impugned decision. Lastly, it has been submitted that there appears to be a dispute of election which could not have been decided by the respondent No. 1 and therefore the order is without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submits that by the impugned decision the term of the committee has been cut short which is illegal and impermissible. In support of the aforesaid contention about want of jurisdiction of the respondent No. 1 to pass the impugned order and term of the committee cannot be cut short, reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on the decision as reported in AIR 1988 All 236 and (1996) 1 UPLBEC 413 respectively.

( 5 ) SRI V. K. Shukla learned advocate who appears on behalf of the respondent No. 2 in response to the aforesaid submission argues that petitioner was given full opportunity and after giving cogent reasons the decision has been taken by the respondent No. 1 in which finding of fact has been recorded and therefore no interference is required by this Court. Learned counsel submits that in fact no election has taken place and it was all a forged affairs and therefore after recording aforesaid finding respondent No. 1 has properly exercised the jurisdiction as vested in him and required direction has been issued. It has been further submitted that the list of 12 members which is being relied upon by the petitioner though being incomplete and incorrect, nevertheless six members out of the aforesaid list of 12 members have filed affidavit stating that no election has taken place and they are not elected office bearers. Learned counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid, claim of the petitioners of their being valid election and that the respondent No. 1 has no jurisdiction to adjudicate, cannot be accepted. In view of the aforesaid learned counsel submits that the order of the respondent No. 1 being perfectly just and proper, no interference is required.

( 6 ) LEARNED Standing Counsel who appears in the matter also supported the order of the respondent No. 1 placing reliance on the findings so recorded in the impugned order.

( 7 ) ON perusal of the impugned order of the respondent No. 1 it is clear that pet