Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Jai Singh Parihar, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Devi Prasad Tripathi, Manish Kumar Pandey, Prabhakar Awasthi

Key Points: - The Assistant Registrar does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on the validity of elections under the Societies Registration Act, 1860; such disputes must be referred to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) (!) (!) (!) . - Elections disputes, including validity of office-bearers, must be decided by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) and not by the Registrar/Assistant Registrar; a reference to the Prescribed Authority is mandatory if there is a doubt about election validity (!) (!) . - If the basic order is without jurisdiction, consequential orders and election proceedings triggered by that order are liable to be quashed/collapsed; the entire structure falls apart due to illegality at the root (subsuming principle of "sublato fundamento cadit opus") (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The court remitted the matter to the Assistant Registrar for a fresh hearing with opportunity to all parties, effectively setting aside the impugned orders dated 19.09.2023 and 05.04.2024 (!) . - The judgment cites harmonization of Sections 4 and 25, reiterating that disputes of election/duration of office-bearers must be decided under Section 25(1) by the Prescribed Authority, not by the Registrar (!) (!) (!) . - The petition was allowed; the impugned order and consequential orders were quashed, and the matter remitted for fresh proceedings with due hearing (!) .

How to determine the jurisdiction of the Assistant Registrar under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and whether it can adjudicate on the validity of elections?

What is the proper forum for resolving election disputes under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 when the Registrar/Assistant Registrar lacks jurisdiction?

What is the effect of declaring elections invalid by the Assistant Registrar on subsequent election proceedings and on the validity of the entire process?