Rajan Roy, J.

1. Heard Shri Gajendra Pratap, learned senior Counsel assisted by Shri Pranav Kumar Srivastava for the petitioners and Shri V.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3. By means of Writ Petition No. 57510 of 2010 the petitioners have challenged the order dated 31.7.2010 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi, by which he has decided the membership dispute of the general body of the Society, known as Hindu High School Zamania Station, District Ghazipur (hereinafter called "the Society") and has declared the list of 63 members as valid while the list of 104 members submitted by petitioner No. 22 Sudarshan Singh Yadav (deceased) as invalid. Writ Petition No. 58206 of 2010 challenges the orders passed by the District Inspector of Schools consequential to the order dated 31.7.2010 impugned in Writ Petition No. 57510 of 2010.

2. Writ Petition No. 57510 of 2010 has been heard as the leading writ petition and its facts have been mentioned hereinafter.

3. This Court while entertaining the writ petition had stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 31.7.2010 vide its order dated 24.9.2010, therefore, the same has not been implemented.

4. Shri Gajendra Pratap, learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, assailed the aforesaid order on the ground firstly, there was no 'lis' existing for issuance of notice by the Assistant Registrar for deciding a membership dispute; secondly, in any case, the Assistant Registrar did not have any authority under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter called as "Act of 1860") to decide the membership dispute of the general body of the Society; and thirdly, the petitioner No. 22, who alone had been issued notice, was not afforded due opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order. The affected parties, i.e., petitioner Nos. 1 to 21 were not issued any notice by the Assistant Registrar and were not heard. He also submitted that the election of office bearers which was held on 30.5.2004, in which the petitioner No. 22 was elected, was not challenged by the respondent No. 3 nor was the subsequent election held on 23.2.2009 challenged, thus there being no challenge to the elections of office bearers of the society by him, there was no question of reference of any dispute pertaining to office bearers by the Assistant Registrar to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Act 1860, consequently there was no question for considering any membership dispute in this context, even incidentally, in exercise of such power of reference nor under Section 4 i.e., at the time of submission/registration of annual list of office bearers after the 'renewal of registration of the society' by the order dated 30.5.2009.

5. The order dated 30.5.2009 was challenged by the respondent No. 3 before the Court by means of Writ Petition No. 46567 of 2009. It was dismissed on the ground that the said order was only an order of renewal of the society and it did not confer any right upon the rival parties claiming management of the society and that the said dispute pertaining to its office bearers could be raised separately. This Court did not issue any direction to the Assistant Registrar/Registrar, therefore, there was no occasion for the respondent No. 3 to submit an application dated 16.9.2009 to the Assistant Registrar for compliance of the judgment of this Court dated 2.9.2009, but surprisingly, based on the aforesaid, the Assistant Registrar issued notice to the petitioner No. 22 (as is evident from the impugned order itself) and proceeded to decide the membership dispute as also the validity of the list of members of the general body of the society. As there was no 'lis' existing prior to the issuance of the notice and no lis had been raised by the application dated 16.9.2009, the same could not be allowed to be raised thereafter by the Assistant Registrar. The Assistant Registrar did not have any power under Section 15 of the Act