( 1 ) ON 14/12/1999, the learned Single Judge, before whom instant petition was up for consideration for admission, passed the following order : honble S. Harkauli, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. This writ petition arises out of an order passed by the Registrar of the Societies dated 19-11-1999 by which it has been held that respondent No. 2 is validly elected committee of management and petitioner No. 1 is not the validly elected committee. The election of respondent No. 2 is alleged to have been held on 21-3-1999 while election of petitioner No. 1 is alleged to have been held on 20-6-1999. the renewal of certificate of registration of the societies was done in 1991. Consequent upon the election, three applications were filed for renewal of registration. First application was by out going committee of management which did not appear to press the application and the application was impliedly rejected by granting renewal in favour of respondent No. 2. Two other applications were made by petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 Consequence to the finding in favour of election dated 21-3-1999 the renewal has been granted in favour of respondent No. 2. The order is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the Registrar had no power to decide the dispute as to which the committee of management was validly elected committee of management. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 who has filed a caveat in this case has relied upon S. 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 as amended in its application to U. P. " to justify the decision of the Registrar. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 relies upon two decisions of this Court reported in (1998) 2 UPLBEC 1000 and (1998) 3 UPLBEC 1925 : (1999 All LJ 64)learned counsel for the petitioners on the other hand relies upon the decision of this Court reported in 1993 ESC 201; Khaparaha Educational Society v. Assistant Registrar, in which after considering the earlier decisions the learned single Judge has taken a view that the dispute regular election should be referred to the Prescribed Authority instead of being decided by the Registrar. An argument was raised in the said reported decision which is contained in paragraph 7 of the Law Report. The said arguments does not appear to have been answered except by saying that if the argument is accepted S. 25 (1)would become meaningless. For ready reference S. 4 (1) proviso as applicable in U. P. and S. 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act is reproduced below : section 4 (1) Once in every year, on or before the fourteenth day succeeding the day which, according to the rules of the society, the annual general meeting of the society is held, or, if the rules do not provide for an annual general meeting in the month of January, a list shall be filed with (Registrar) of the names, addresses and occupations of the governors, council, directors, committee, or other governing body them entrusted with the management of the affairs of the society: (Provided that if the managing body is elected after the last submission of the list, the counter signatures of the old members, shall, as far as possible, be obtained on the list. If the old office-bearers do not counter-sign the list, the Registrar may, in his direction, issue a public notice or notice to such person as he thinks fit inviting objections within a specified period and shall decide all objections received within the said period ). Section 25 (1) : The prescribed authority may, on reference made to it by the Registrar or by at least one-fourth of the members of a society registered in Uttar Pradesh, hear 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 sati

Click Here to Read the rest of this document