JUDGMENT :

Kshitij Shailendra, J.

1. Heard Shri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 and Shri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel representing respondent no.3.

2. The order under challenge in the present writ petition is dated 10.04.2023 whereby the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Jhansi in furtherance of directions issued by this Court in Writ C No.1887 of 2023 (C/M Darul Uloom Samadia & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.), has set aside the list of office bearers registered at the behest of the petitioners and also the impugned Bye-laws of the Society by recording a finding that the same had been obtained on the basis of fabricated documents.

3. The submission of learned Senior Counsel is to the effect that elections of the Society were held in the year 2021 from a Body of seven office bearers and the list was registered on 25.03.2022, whereafter, amendments were made in the Bye-laws by a list of 11 office bearers and the same were registered in the office of Assistant Registrar on 30.12.2022. It is contended that a complaint was moved by respondent no.3 and, thereafter, a direction was sought from this Court for taking a decision on the complaint and it is in pursuance of the said complaint and the direction that the order impugned has been passed. It is further contended that insofar as, the complaint is concerned, it was with respect to the meeting dated 25.12.2021 to the effect that the said meeting was not held in accordance with law; that the President of the Society namely Kudrat Ullah had no knowledge about the same and that his signatures were forged in the proceedings. Various other allegations were also levelled in the complaint and according to learned Senior Counsel, the scope of complaint was limited to examine the validity of meeting dated 25.12.2021, whereas, the Assistant Registrar has transgressed his powers and jurisdiction to go beyond the scope of complaint and has, infact, reviewed the earlier decision whereby the list of office bearers was registered on 25.03.2022 and, further proceedings were held on 08.09.2022 and 07.10.2022.

4. As regards the meeting dated 25.12.2021, it has been argued that at that time, seven members were there, out of whom, five were present and, therefore, the quorum being complete, the meeting was held in accordance with law, and certain decisions were taken including the decision of resignation of Vice President and Manager owing to their sickness and inability to perform and discharge their duties. It is further contended that order impugned has been passed committing violation of principles of natural justice and even the documents filed by the contesting-respondents were not provided to the petitioners.

5. Per contra, Shri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent no.3 has referred to the proceedings of meeting dated 25.12.2021 as contained in 'Annexure No.17' to the writ petition. He submits that initial two lines of the said proceedings clearly disclose that the meeting was held under the Presidentship of Kudrat Ullah as President of the Society but there is no reference of his name in the entire proceedings, except, that he was again elected/nominated in the list of office bearers. It has been shown to the Court that even the proceedings of the previous meeting were read over by the Vice President and Agenda No.2 was also put by him. It is, therefore, contended that if Kudrat Ullah as President was present in the meeting, there was no occasion for Vice President to conduct the proceedings of the meeting. It has not been disputed that prior to the meeting dated 25.12.2021, Mohammad Anees happened to be Vice President and his father Noor Mohammad happened to be Manager, whereas, in the said meeting, these two posts/office bearership were reversed that is to say Noor Mohammed was elected as Vice President and Mohammad Anees as