Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Heard Sri Yatindra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Indra Raj Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the present writ petition may be disposed of at this stage without calling for any further affidavits, specifically in view of the order proposed to be passed today.

3. This Court is not happy with the manner in which the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi has acted in the facts of the present case, while conducting elections of the office bearers of the society registered in the name and style of ‘Kisan Adarsh Bal Vidyalaya Samiti, Gaddopur, Belwan, Mariyahun, District Jaunpur’ in exercise of powers under Section 25 (2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, on the basis of the electoral college determined under his order dated 19th January, 2013.

4. Petitioner before this Court, who claims to be ex-manager of the Committee of Management filed writ petition No. 6988 of 2013 stating therein that such determination of the electoral college has taken place without any tentative list being published and without objections being invited. It was his case that he filed detailed objections supported by documents and affidavit for establishing that there were certain valid members of the general body who have been excluded from being included in the electoral college. Since at the relevant time agenda for holding elections had already been published, the Writ Court did not interfere with the elections. The Writ Court vide order dated 7th February, 2013 disposed of the petition by providing that after the elections are over, petitioner will be at liberty to file his objections in the matter of determination of the electoral college as also in respect of procedure adopted qua elections. The Assistant Registrar was required to consider the objections to be so filed by means of a reasoned speaking order, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

5. The Assistant Registrar under the order impugned has rejected the objections so filed by the petitioner by means of four lines order only on the ground that the petitioner was given an opportunity to file documents in support of his objections under notice dated 26th February, 2013 fixing 11th March, 2013 as the date in the matter, which he did not avail.

6. According to the petitioner, he responded to the notice and filed his reply in writing, wherein it was stated that he had already filed detailed objections supported by an affidavit and documents earlier, for establishing that the electoral college has not been correctly determined.

7. The Assistant Registrar has ignored the aforesaid objections only on the ground that alongwith said reply, evidence has not been filed. Hence the present writ petition.

8. This Court while entertaining the present writ petition on 6th May, 2013 required the Assistant Registrar to produce the original records, inasmuch as it was the case of the petitioner that he had filed detail objections earlier which were supported by an affidavit and documents, the Assistant Registrar has deliberately not considered the same.

9. Today, original records have been produced before this Court. On examination of the records, this Court finds that detail objections running into hundreds of pages has been filed before the Assistant Registrar on 23rd February, 2013. The same are very much on record. The documents reflect upon the enrollment of new members of the general body of the society. The Assistant Registrar should have examined these documents specifically in light of the fact that the petitioner while filing his objections in pursuance to the order of the Writ Court dated 7th February, 2013 referred to above had pointed out that such objections were already on record supported by an affidavit and evidence. These documents could not have been brushed side by the Assistant Reg