Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.—Heard counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Nipun Singh for respondents 3 and 4.

2. The petitioners herein claim themselves to be duly recognised Committee of Management and the Manager of a registered society in the name of A.S. Degree College Association, Mawana, Meerut. A writ petition (Writ-C No. 2365 of 2016) was filed before this Court by the third and the fourth respondents contending that they had made a complaint regarding illegal induction of 1450 members by the petitioners and the second respondent (Deputy Registrar) taking cognizance of the said complaint, has called for comments from the petitioners, but no further action is being taken in the matter. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 20 January 2016 observing that the second respondent, shall take necessary measures to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, in accordance with law, after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioners therein. Following the directions given in the writ petition, the second respondent issued notice to the petitioners and they appeared before him on 4.2.2016. However, they failed to produce the original records before him relating to the induction of 1450 members in the general body. By the impugned communication dated 18.2.2016, the second respondent has informed the petitioners that in view of failure on part of the petitioners in producing the original records, despite several notices, he is unable to comply with the orders of this Court. It has further been observed that in the absence of the original record being produced before him, the induction of new members appears to be doubtful. It has further been noted that in such circumstances, in case compliance of the order of this Court is not made, the petitioners will be responsible for the same.

3. The petitioners have approached this Court challenging the aforesaid communication dated 18.2.2016 on the ground that power under Section 4-B which has been invoked by the second respondent in issuing the impugned notice was not available to him as it could only be exercised at the time of registration/renewal of the society. It is urged that in the instant case, no such occasion has arisen as the renewal was granted on 30.11.2011 and is valid for five years from 26.9.2011. It is further submitted that the observation in the impugned order that induction of the new members appears to be doubtful will cause serious prejudice to the petitioners as adverse inference is likely to be drawn against them at the time they apply for registration of list of new office bearers under Section 4 of the Act.

4. On the other hand, Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 3 and 4 submitted that since the membership dispute has been raised before the second respondent, any adjudication made by the Deputy Registrar in that regard is referable to Section 4-B of the Act. It is further submitted that in the impugned communication, the second respondent has not declared the induction of new members to be invalid but only observed that non-production of the original record is creating suspicion on the validity of their induction. It is urged that it is still open to the petitioners to produce the original records before him and convince him of the valid induction of new members.

5. Section 4-B was inserted by U.P. Act No. 23 of 2013 w.e.f. 12 July 2013. The Statement of Objects and Reasons specifically notices that at present, a large number of societies are disputed due to non-existence of correct list of General Body with the Registrar. In several cases, an illegal person, fraudulently, produces before the Registrar an incorrect list of General Body of the society and claims to be the member or office bearer of such society. In order to avoid such situation, it was decided to amend the Act in its application to Uttar Pradesh by providing for filing of the li