The Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow had no authority to interfere in the dispute over election results of a registered society, and the Prescribed Authority must adjudicate such disputes in accordance with Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri S. D. Shukla, Advocate on behalf of petitioner, Sri R. N. Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri P. K. Sinha, Advocate on behalf of respondent No. 4 and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

( 2 ) AKHIL Bhartiya Gujar Vidya Pracharini Sabha, Saharanpur is a society duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The said society has its own registered bye-laws. The election for the office of the President and Secretary of the society alone are held from amongst members of the General Body and aforesaid two office bearers thereafter co-opt the other office bearers of the society. The elections for the purposes of electing the President and Secretary of the society, took place on 15th June, 2005. In the result of the elections declared by the election officer, whereby it was recorded that Sri Mahipal Singh (petitioner) has secured 1342 votes while Sri Bhupendra Singh (respondent No. 4) has received only 1283 votes. Accordingly Sri mahipal Singh (petitioner) was declared elected as President.

( 3 ) ON 21st June, 2005 the election officer on a complaint made by Sri Bhupendra Singh to the effect that he received 1282 votes while Sri Mahipal Singh received 1223 votes only, an order of recounting of votes was passed. The said order of the election officer was challenged before this court by means of the writ petition No. 46925 of 2005. The writ petition was dismissed by the division Bench of this Court vide order dated 18th July, 2005 with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition, if need, so arises. Even prior to the passing of the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 18th July, 2005, the Election Officer by means of the order dated 27th June, 2005, has in fact affected the recounting of votes and declared that Sri Bhupendra Singh has secured 1282 votes in recounting while Sri Mahipal Singh (petitioner) has secured only 1223 votes. Accordingly Sri Bhupendra Singh was declared elected as President.

( 4 ) THE relevant papers in respect of the aforesaid elections were transmitted to the office of the assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Saharanpur for the list of office bearers being registered under Section 4 (1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. No orders of the Assistant registrar has been brought on record.

( 5 ) THE Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, U. P. Lucknow, however, passed an order dated 13th july, 2005, whereby it has been provided that the elections of Sri Bhupendra Singh for the post of President and Sri Ishwar Pal Singh for the post of Secretary are legal and valid and are being recognized. It has been further provided that the said order would be subject to the final order, which may be passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46925 of 2005. The said order of the registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow has been challenged by the petitioner by means of this petition on the following grounds:

(a) The Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow had no authority of law to pass the impugned order, inasmuch as there being a bona fide dispute with regard to the elections of the office bearer for the post of President of a registered society, therefore, the said dispute was liable to be referred to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration act, 1860. (b) The election officer, having declared the results of the office bearers for the post of President and Secretary on 15th June, 2005, becomes functus officio, therefore, could not have directed recounting of votes vide order dated 21st June, 2005, as a result whereof subsequent declaration of results on the basis of recounting of votes is a nullity in the eyes of law.

( 6 ) ON behalf of the respondents it is contended that the order of the election officer dated 21st june, 2005 directing recounting of votes, was challenged by the petitioner by means of the Civil misc. Writ Petitio