Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—The petitioner claiming himself to be a member of the General Body of a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, which runs a Junior High School, and is aided by the State Government assails the impugned order dated 19th January, 2011 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Chits & Societies on the ground that it is without jurisdiction and even otherwise on merits the acceptance of the claim of the respondent No. 3 in relation to the elections dated 25.11.2005 and 1.10.2010 is contrary to the provisions of the bye-laws as is evident from the facts already brought on record.

2. Sri R.K. Ojha alongwith Sri Irshad Husain has advanced his submissions for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Khare learned senior counsel alongwith Sri H.N. Pandey has been heard for the respondent No. 3 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

3. The judgment had been reserved on 23.2.2011 as the learned counsel for the respondent including the learned Standing Counsel stated that they do not propose to file any counter-affidavit and the matter be disposed of finally on the submissions already raised and the documents on record. Accordingly, the matter is being disposed of finally under the Rules of the Court and with the consent of parties.

4. Sri R.K. Ojha learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Resolution dated 25.11.2005 which is being relied upon by the respondents alleging holding of elections is no elections in accordance with the bye-laws, and Resolution No. 2 simply allows the earlier office bearers elected to continue to Act as office bearers and get renewal of the society done. Sri Ojha, therefore, submits that this is no election in the eyes of law, and therefore, fresh elections ought to have been held under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 through the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits.

5. He further contends that the claim of the respondent No. 5-Committee that it was elected on 1.10.2010 again is also erroneous, inasmuch as, a copy of the said proceedings which has been filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition indicates only filling up of casual vacancies and is no regular election in accordance with the bye-laws. Sri Ojha, therefore, submits that as a matter of fact, no elections were held at all and therefore elections had to be held through the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits as referred to herein above.

6. Sri Ojha then proceeded to invite the attention of the Court to Annexure-7 to the writ petition to contend that an order was passed on 23.11.2010 by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits. When he was hearing the dispute, the learned counsel for both the contesting parties had agreed for getting fresh elections held through the Deputy Registrar and that the Deputy Registrar also accepted the said proposal. Not only this, the Deputy Registrar passed the following order on 23.11.2010 :

^^vkt fnukad 23-11-2010 dks Jh [kPpu flag dh vksj ls mud vf/koDrk Jh foosd dqekj mifLFkr gSA Jh jkelju dh vksj ls muds vf/koDrk Jh gsesUnz ikBd ,M0 mifLFkr gSaA nksuksa i{kksa dks lquk x;kA nksuksa i{k lks0 dh izcU/k lfefr dk fuokZpu bl dk;kZy; }kjk djus ij lger gSaA vr% izcU/k lfefr dks mDr dh lgefr ij dkykrhr ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA dkykrhr ds lEcU/k esa foLr`r vkns’k vyx ls tkjh fd;k tk;sxkA

g0@& vLi"V

mi fuca/kd

QelZ lkslkbVht ,oa fpV~l

vkxjk {ks= vkxjk

23-11-2010

o eqgj^^

Sri Ojha, therefore, submits that the matter had been decided finally and the file had been closed.

7. Thereafter the contesting respondent No. 3 appears to have moved an application on the same day itself making a request for review of the said order, inasmuch as, the elections had already been held on 25.11.2005 which aspect deserved to be reconsidered in the interest of justice. It was further urged therein that the proceedings dated 1.10.2010 should also therefore be accepted.

8. The contention of the petitioner is that su