Hon’ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.—These two writ petitions relate to the membership and election dispute of governing body of the Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 known as the ‘Board of Trustees Shia College and other connected Institutions’ (hereinafter referred to as the Board of Trustees) and being inter-related were heard together and are being decided by a common judgement.

2. Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rajeev Singh has argued on behalf of the petitioners, Sri Apoorva Tiwari, learned counsel argued on behalf of respondent No. 5 in Writ Petition No. 7042 (MS) of 2014 and respondent No. 4 in Writ Petition No. 71 (MS) of 2015, Sri Satyanshu Ojha, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has argued on behalf of the State.

3. Although C.M. Application No. 11298 of 2014 has been filed in Writ Petition No. 7042 (MS) of 2014 by four applicants i.e. newly elected members but no one has appeared to press and argue the said application, despite name of the counsel being shown in the cause list.

4. By means of Writ Petition No. 7042 (MS) of 2014, the order passed by the Deputy Registrar on 17.10.2014 has been challenged which essentially approves the list of the members of Board of Trustees, notwithstanding the election of governing body alleged to have been held on 11.10.2014. Writ Petition No. 71 (MS) of 2015 primarily assails the order dated 3.1.2015, whereby the rival governing body on being elected on 14.11.2014 as per the list of members of the Board of Trustees approved on 17.10.2014 has been recognised by the Deputy Registrar during subsistence of rival claim based on the previous election of governing body held on 11.10.2014.

5. In the context of rival disputes, it is an admitted position between both the parties that the previous election of the governing body for a term of five years was held on 15.11.2009 and the same was approved/recognised on 31.3.2010, whereafter registration of the Society was also renewed on 30.10.2010 for a period of five years w.e.f. 10.10.2010.

6. During the term of previous governing body, the removal of some trustees prior to the expiry of their term and simultaneous election of new trustees against resultant vacancies on the same very day gave rise to serious disputes. When new trustees were included in the list and the election proceedings based on the disputed list were submitted for approval under Section 4-B and Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act by the rival claimants, the objections/cross objections filed by both the parties engaged attention of the competent authority i.e. Deputy Registrar who has passed the impugned orders, hence the writ petitions have come to be filed. The election held by the rival group i.e. petitioners on 11.10.2014 has not been challenged by any party but the issuance of impugned orders passed by the Deputy Registrar on 17.10.2014 and 3.1.2015 is a subject-matter of challenge in the above writ petitions.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that there being no stage either for registration or renewal of Society as stipulated under Section 4-B of the Societies Registration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Deputy Registrar, with the issuance of the impugned order dated 17.10.2014 legalising the election of new members of the Board of Trustees, has acted without jurisdiction. It is also submitted that the Board of Trustees is the governing body of the Society hence all the members of the Board and its office-bearers constitute the governing body, therefore, Section 4-B of the Act has no application in the matter of approving the list of membership of the Board of Trustees which is rather the governing body of the Society.

8. Further submission is that at the relevant point of time, reference in respect of the election held on 15.11.2009 was pending before the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Act, therefore, the Deputy Registrar without