Hon’ble Rajan Roy, J.—This case was posted for re-hearing today vide order dated 17.8.2015.

2. Heard Sri Sandeep Dixit learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramesh Pandey, Sri H.G.S. Parihar for opposite party No. 4 and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

3. The dispute came up before this Court earlier by means of Writ Petition No. 1757(MS) of 2015 filed by the petitioners herein challenging an order dated 23.3.2015 purported to have been passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow, declaring the Society in question as time-barred under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act 1860 (for short “the Act”) with effect from 2011. This Court disapproved the said action and quashed the order dated 23.3.2015 vide its judgment and order dated 7.4.2015, which reads as under :

“Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Diwakar Singh ‘Kaushik’ for respondent No. 4, learned Standing Counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri I. P. Singh, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No. 5, which is taken on record.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that two elections, one held on 2.11.2014 and other allegedly held on 9.11.2014 were brought to the notice of Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Faizabad, respondent No. 3. Once the elections held by the rival claimants came to the notice of the Deputy Registrar, the validity thereof could not have been adjudicated upon by him within the purview of Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act and the matter ought to have been referred to the prescribed authority. The issuance of the impugned order by ignoring the order dated 30.9.2013 and holding the previous election as invalid is clearly beyond the jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar and for this reason, interference by this Court is called for in the impugned order dated 23.3.2015.

At this stage, both the parties are in agreement that the writ petition, instead of being kept pending, may be disposed of finally, leaving it open to the Deputy Registrar to act in accordance with law and for that purpose, impugned order may be set aside.

Being of the considered opinion that the impugned order having been passed without jurisdiction, is liable to be set aside, the parties to the proceedings before this Court are also in agreement to the proposition and pray that the matter may be relegated to the Deputy Registrar for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel and the agreement expressed, the impugned order dated 23.3.2015, having been passed beyond the scope of Section 25 (2) of the Act, is hereby set aside. Both the parties are permitted to appear before the Deputy Registrar on 20.4.2015 and it shall be open to the Deputy Registrar to proceed in accordance with law, having regard to the fact that rival disputes of election have been raised by the respective parties.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of finally.”

4. This Court had categorically held that the dispute did not attract Section 25(2) of the Act and the impugned order had been passed ignoring the order dated 30.9.2013 by which the list of office bearers submitted by the earlier Committee of Management had been taken on record and the renewal of the Society had been done on its application.

5. It is not in dispute that two rival elections have been held, one by the petitioner which is said to have taken place on 2.11.2014 and the other election is said to have been held by the rival party represented by the opposite party No. 4 Ayodhya Prasad on 9.11.2014. In pursuance to the earlier judgment of this Court dated 7.4.2015 the impugned order has been issued publishing a tentative list of the Members of the General Body for election to the Committee of