JAGDISH BHALLA AND P. K. CHATTERJI, JJ.

( 1 ) BY an interim order dated 9. 7. 2002, learned single Judge while recording certain findings directed the Registrar to hold the fresh election of Committee of Management within two months from that date in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Societies Registration Act and rules framed thereunder.

( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by the above order, the appellants have preferred this special appeal inter alia on the ground that the Registrar has no power under Section 25 (2) of the Societies Registration act, 1860 [hereinafter, referred to as the Act] but the learned single Judge has passed the impugned order upholding the order of the Registrar for the reason that the case appeared to be of strange type, who without recording any finding declared the order of the Registrar to be perfectly legal and justified. Learned single Judge, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, has committed an error in not adverting to the submission that the order of the registrar is void ab initio for the reason that respondent No. 3 was not at all competent to approach the Registrar on account of the fact that respondent No. 3 himself was not only the member but President of the Committee who has taken the decision, which respondent No. 3 had sought to challenge and thus the action of the Registrar taking cognizance on the representations of respondent No. 3 was not proper and legally justified.

( 3 ) SRI N. K. Seth, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 raised objection to the maintainability of the special appeal and placing reliance on the decisions in Fakirelal v. State of v. P. and Ors. , 1999 (2) AWC 926 : 1999 (17) LCD 606, Pratapur Sugar and Industries Ltd. v. Deputy Labour Commissioner, 2001 (19) LCD 247, Smt. Rama Devi v. Smt. Madhuri Verma and Ors. , 1998 (16) LCD 115 and Sita Ram Lal v. District Inspector of Schools, 1994 (1)VPLBEC 24, learned counsel for the respondent contended that in view of the principles laid down in the above cases, this special appeal is not maintainable.

( 4 ) SRI Seth in support of his contention that the special appeal is not maintainable in the present case further relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Sudarshan Singh Bedi v. Additional District Magistrate/rent Control and Eviction Officer, Varanasi, 1993 (1) AWC 916. In this case, their Lordships held that the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer shall be treated as an order of the Tribunal as the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has to determine the objections as provided under Rule 8 (2) of the rules. The provisions of determination casts duty upon the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to act judicially after considering the pleadings of the parties and after affording them opportunity to lead evidence and further to pass a reasoned order. Learned counsel, however, failed to satisfy that the registrar also performs such functions while passing order in exercise of powers under Section 25 (2) of the Act. In these circumstances, the case relied upon by him is not applicable in this case.

( 5 ) ACCORDING to learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court rules is based on a logic that the prescribed authority or the revisional authority which acts as tribunal or Court having already appreciated the matter from judicial angle and in order to get finality, the decision of the single Judge should be taken as final and no appeal should further be maintainable. Elaborating further, he submitted that while deciding whether the appeal is maintainable or not. what is to be seen is whether the order which is subject-matter of challenge in the writ petition filed under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution had been given by a body or authority which had been constituted by the State and had been clothed with the States inherent judicial power to deal with disputes between the parties and to determine them on merits, fairly and objectiv

Click Here to Read the rest of this document