The impugned order was quashed as the Assistant Registrar did not consider the renewal of the society's registration and did not act in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

Rajan Roy, J.

1. Supplementary-affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Counsel for respondents.

3. As regards respondent No. 5, the society, it is admitted position of parties before this Court and it is a fact which is mentioned in the impugned order also that after 12.2.2012 no elections to the committee of management of society have been held and the said committee of management which was elected in the last elections has become time barred. The then manager died in 2013 and in his place, petitioner No. 1 Ram Dev was elected. Moreover, as informed by learned Counsel for parties the registration of the society has also not been renewed, therefore, in these circumstances considering the order proposed to be passed notices need not be issued to respondents, especially as the Committee of Management has become time barred and it is the petitioner No. 1 who was its Manager.

4. First and foremost the law is very well-settled that unless the registration of the society is renewed, the Assistant Registrar would have no jurisdiction to proceed under Societies Registration Act, 1860. In this view of matter one of the questions to be considered is as to how if the society is veritably unregistered in eyes of law the impugned order has been passed by the Assistant Registrar determining the members of the General Body of the society and issuing the election schedule which is to be held on 23.2.2020.

5. This apart another issue which has cropped up during the course of hearing is as to how the list of members of the General Body could be finalised by the Assistant Registrar without issuing a tentative list of such members and inviting objections which is ordinarily the procedure followed by the Assistant Registrars of society throughout the State of U.P. in pursuance to certain judgments of this Court, as, after declaring a committee of management as time barred and in view of the elections not being held by such committee of management within the period stipulated in the rules the first and foremost requirement is to determine the electoral college for such elections. In order to avoid any dispute of membership this Court in a catena of decisions has required the Assistant Registrar to first of all determine the tentative list of members of General Body obviously on the basis of parameters prescribed under section 15 of the Act 1860 and the newly inserted section 4-B of the said Act and thereafter invite objections from the concerned persons to such tentative list. On receipt of objections they are required to be considered by the Assistant Registrar or if no such objection is received even then he has to finalise the list of members of the General Body for facilitating the election under section 25(2) of the Act 1860. In this case the tentative list of the members of the General Body has not been notified, may be this was done on account of the fact that the petitioners did not produce the original records regarding induction of new members in the year 2013-14 and 2014-15. Accordingly, the Assistant Registrar excluded these 30 members who are alleged to have been inducted as members of the general body of the society by the committee of management elected in 2012. Even then there was no reason for him not to issue a tentative list of members of the general body as there cannot be any presumption that no one else would raise any objection. The Assistant Registrar also rejected the alleged induction of 38 members in the general body of the society by the respondent No. 6 Anant Prasad Shukla who in fact was elected as Manager of the committee of management of the college in the election held on 18.1.2015 and was never elected as manager or any other office bearer of the committee of the management of the society, a fact which has not been belied by the Counsel for respondent No. 6 either orally or in writing. It is also not in dispute that so far as exclusion of these 38 members f