Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Shri Sudhakar Pandey, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri K.N. Rai, the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition, as alleged by the petitioner is, that the respondent No. 3 was removed as a member of the Society by a resolution dated 20th February, 1982, which information, was sent to the Assistant Registrar. On 3rd January, 1991, an election was held, in which one Gorakh Nath Yadav was elected as the Secretary and the petitioner Kamleshwar Prasad Yadav was elected as the Deputy Secretary. It is stated that Gorakh Nath died on 17th April, 1992, and by a resolution dated 10th May, 1992, the petitioner No. 2 was allowed to work as the Secretary. It is further alleged that on 20th of February, 2001, fresh elections were held in which Kedar Nath Yadav was elected as the President and the petitioner No. 2 was elected as the Secretary. Relevant papers were submitted on 23rd October, 2001 and the Registrar, by its order dated 24.11.2001, accepted the list of office bearers of the Society submitted by the petitioner No. 2 and also renewed the registration of the Society by an order dated 24.11.2001. Based on the aforesaid order of the Registrar, the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari also attested the signatures of the petitioner No. 2 as the Manager of the educational institution which was being run by the Society.

3. It transpires that the respondent No. 3 Bachcha Nand Yadav, alleging himself to be the Secretary of the Society, filed a recall application on 30th April, 2002, on which, notices were issued to the petitioners, and an ex parte order dated 24th of May, 2002 was passed by the Registrar recalling its earlier order dated 24.11.2001. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, filed Writ Petition No. 24325 of 2002 which was allowed by a judgment dated 8th of July, 2003 and the order of the Registrar dated 24th May, 2002 was set aside and the matter was remitted again to the said authority to decide the matter afresh after hearing the parties concerned.

4. Based on the aforesaid directions, the parties filed their pleadings and documents before the Registrar and the matter was duly considered by the Assistant Registrar, who again passed the impugned order dated 3rd September, 2003 directing the list of office bearers of the respondent No. 3 to be registered under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition. Based on the order dated 3.9.2003, the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari passed an order dated 30.6.2004 attesting the signatures of respondent No. 3 against which Writ Petition No. 24541 of 2004 has been filed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a valid election was held, in which the petitioner was validly elected as the Secretary, and that, the Registrar had rightly registered the list of the office bearers under Section 4 of the Act, and that the Assistant Registrar had committed a manifest error in recalling its order and further registering the list of the office bearers supplied by the respondent No. 3. The learned counsel submitted that the Assistant Registrar had travelled beyond its jurisdiction and powers in considering and deciding a dispute between two rival Committees of Management. The learned counsel submitted that if the Assistant Registrar came to a conclusion and found that there was doubt as to which Committee of Management was a validly elected Committee, he had no power to adjudicate upon such a dispute and the Assistant Registrar could have only referred the dispute for adjudication under Section 25 of the Act before the Prescribed Authority. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon various decisions of this Court, namely, Vijay Narain Singh v. Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits Registration, U.P