Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard Sri P.S. Baghel, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 4 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

2. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioners bringing on record the resolution dated 21st May, 2010 under which the petitioners had been authorized to move a reference before the Prescribed Authority.

3. A counter-affidavit has also been filed by the contesting private respondent and the matter has been heard.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 submits that he does not propose to file any counter-affidavit at this stage.

5. The sole ground on which the reference has been rejected by the Prescribed Authority is that the same has not been presented with the strength of 1/4th of the members of the general body as envisaged under sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1860 Act’).

6. Sri P.S. Baghel contends that the aforesaid approach of the Prescribed Authority is erroneous in law, inasmuch as, on facts the meeting of the general body was conducted on 21st May, 2010 and 1/4th members resolved to present the reference keeping in view the judgment of this Court dated 5th May, 2010 in Writ Petition No. 24484 of 2010. He, therefore, contends that once the resolution was there authorizing the petitioners to present the said reference then there was no occasion for the Prescribed Authority to have rejected the same without recording the validity or otherwise of the said resolution authorizing the petitioners to move the same.

7. Sri Shashi Nandan submits that as a matter of fact, there is no such valid resolution and the Prescribed Authority was, therefore, right in proceeding to reject the reference on this count. He contends that such reference cannot be made through the Manager of the institution and has to be presented by the 1/4th members themselves as per Section 25(1) of the 1860 Act.

8. The petitioner-committee had come before this Court earlier by questioning the correctness of the order dated 8th April, 2010 passed by the Assistant Registrar. The said writ petition was dismissed with the observation that the petitioners can avail of the remedy as provided for under Section 25(1) of the 1860 Act. The judgment dated 5th May 2010 is quoted below :

“The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 8th April, 2010 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Agra Region Agra (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Deputy Registrar’) by which the list of office bearers and members of the Committee of Management of the Society has been registered under Section 4(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

Sri P.S. Baghel, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has raised a number of submissions for setting aside the aforesaid order but learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 have submitted that the petitioners can avail of the alternative remedy provided for under Section 25(1) of the Act.

The Court, therefore, declines to entertain this petition on the ground of alternative remedy but leaves it open to the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy under Section 25 (1) of the Act in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein. It is, however, ordered that in case the matter is entertained by the Prescribed Authority, the same shall be decided after hearing the parties concerned expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months.

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed subject to the aforesaid observations.”

The aforesaid judgment, therefore, reflects a clear direction that the dispute can be entertained under Section 25 of the 1860 Act.

9. In order to appreciate the argument, Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 186