Hon’ble Manoj Misra, J.—Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Prashant Kumar, for the petitioners; learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1 to 3; and Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Daya Shankar Singh, for the respondent No. 4.

The contesting respondent No. 4 has filed a short counter-affidavit to which a rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioners and the learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that in view of the nature of the order that is being passed, the writ petition may be finally decided, at this stage itself.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that there is a registered society by the name of Saltanat Bahadur Educational Trust, Sri Krishna Nagar, Badlapur, Jaunpur. Under the Bye-laws of the Society, the term of the office bearers of the Society is one year. The last undisputed election of the office bearers of the Society was held on 25.5.2012 in which the petitioner No. 3 was elected as the President and the respondent No. 4 was elected as the General Manager. The office bearers were also registered under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act. As the term of the office bearers was of one year, two sets of elections, alleged to have been held on 19.5.2013, were set up before the Assistant Registrar with different set of office bearers, one by the petitioners and the other by the respondent No. 4. The general body of the Society, in both sets of election, set up by rival claimants, was common except to the extent of 57 members which, according to the respondent No. 4, were inducted on the basis of resolution of the Board of Trustees dated 2.9.2012, which was approved by the general body by a Resolution dated 30.9.2012. It is the induction of these 57 members which is bone of contention between the petitioners and the respondent No. 4.

3. The claim of the petitioners is that according to the case of the respondent No. 4 these 57 members had been inducted in the year 2008, but such induction did not find favour with the Assistant Registrar who, by his order dated 31.8.2010 in exercise of power under Section 25 (2) of the Societies Registration Act, had determined the strength of the general body to be of 125 alive members out of a total of 201 members and in that list of 125 alive members, the names of those 57 members, alleged to have been inducted in the year 2008, did not find mention. It is the case of the petitioners that, subsequently, to justify the induction of those 57 members and further to justify their participation in the election dated 19.5.2013, set up by the respondent No. 4, the respondent No. 4, alongwith his application for registering the alleged newly elected office bearers, filed a copy of the Resolution dated 2.9.2012 of the Board of Trustees to suggest that the induction of those 57 members was approved by the Board of Trustees.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that under Clause-5 of the Bye-laws of the Society, induction of new members is required to be proposed and seconded in a meeting of the Trustees (which means the general body), but, in the instant case, the induction of those 57 new members were not made through a meeting of the Trustees and instead, as alleged, it was on the basis of resolution of the Board of Trustees and, therefore, they were not valid members and, as such, the elections set up by the respondent No. 4 with the participation of those additional 57 new members was not legally valid.

5. The Assistant Registrar, Varanasi, by the order impugned, accepted the induction of 57 new members to the general body of the Society and, thereafter, approved the elections set up by the respondent No. 4 and disapproved the elections set up by the petitioners.

6. Challenging the order passed by the Assistant Registrar, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that from the application submitted by the respondent No. 4 before the Assistant Registrar, it was clear that the Resolution