Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—The petitioner No. 1, Anjuman Farogh-e-Islam, Kanpur is a society. It has preferred this writ petition aggrieved by the order dated 23 December, 2009 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Kanpur Region, Kanpur-respondent No. 2, whereby he has determined the electoral college of the society and after the election, has registered the list of office bearers. The petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 have also joined the writ petition as its President and Members of the General Body.

2. The essential facts of the case, as disclosed in the writ petition, are; the petitioner No. 1 is a society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Act 21 of 1860). It manages and runs a madarsa known as Madarsa Farroquiya (for short, “the Madarsa”), which is imparting education up to class-8th and it receives aid under the “Uttar Pradesh Ashashkiya Arbi Tatha Farsi Madarson Ki Manyata Niyamawali, 1987”. It is averred that initially the petitioner No. 2 and 10 other members had established the Anjuman Farogh-e-Islam, Kanpur (for short, “the Society”) and the Madarsa. The affairs of the Society are regulated by its bye-laws. The certificate of registration of the Society was renewed from time to time. The last renewal was made on 12.5.2004 for five years on the application moved by the petitioner No. 2, who was the President and one Mohammad Aslam-respondent No. 5 as a Secretary at that time. The Madarsa came into grant-in-aid list on 02 May 2005 prior to which the Madarsa was being run by the Society out of its resources.

3. It is averred in the writ petition that the respondent No. 5 was not taking any steps for holding the election and the office bearers pursued the petitioners to approach the Deputy Registrar to appoint an observer for holding the election. On the said representation the Deputy Registrar issued a notice to respondent No. 5 to show-cause by 18 December 2004 but instead of replying the said notice he submitted a fictitious election dated 20 November 2004. The said election was alleged to have been conducted on the basis of a fictitious electoral roll containing names of the 19 members, who were not at all enrolled as Members of the Society and on the basis of the said fictitious electoral roll the alleged election dated 20.11.2004 had allegedly taken place.

4. The petitioners and other members had made a complaint against the respondent No. 5 to the Deputy Registrar, however the Deputy Registrar without deciding the said representation/complaint recognized the election dated 20.11.2004.

5. The petitioners aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Registrar dated 27 May 2005 preferred a Writ Petition No. 46831 of 2005. Initially an interim order was granted and finally the writ petition was allowed on 21 July 2006 after exchange of affidavits. The Court was of the view that there was not a proper consideration of the material on record and in view the dispute relates to the election of office bearers, the Prescribed Authority was the appropriate forum to decide the dispute in terms of Section 25(1) of the Act 21 of 1860. The Court set aside the order dated 27 May 2005, whereby the office bearers of the respondent No. 5 were recognized and it issued a direction to the Deputy Registrar to transmit the entire record with reference qua the validity of election dated 20.11.2004 to the Prescribed Authority. Certain directions were also issued to the Prescribed Authority.

6. The Deputy Registrar in compliance of the order of this Court made a reference to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act 21 of 1860. The Prescribed Authority after hearing both the factions vide his order dated 27 September 2007 came to hold that the alleged election set up by the respondent No. 5 dated 20.11.2004 was illegal and the Deputy Registrar was directed to hold fresh election under Section 25(2) of the Act 21 of 1860 from among 11 members.

7. The respondent No. 5 aggrieved by