IMPORTANT POINT
Only the Prescribed Authority has the jurisdiction to decide on the validity of society elections under the relevant provisions of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

Kshitij Shailendra, J.

Heard Sri Rahul Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and perused the record.

2. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits in between the parties have been exchanged and the original record produced on earlier occasions has also been placed before the Court and has been perused, therefore, the writ petition is being finally decided.

3. There are various facts on record, however, in order to cut short the controversy, only those facts shall be mentioned which are necessary for pronouncing the final judgment in the present case.

4. It is contended by Sri Rahul Jain that a Society, namely, Martand Vidyalaya Churiyani Samiyana, runs an intermediate college in the name and style of Martand Vidyalaya Inter College, Churiyani Samiyana, Fatehpur. He submits that the term of the Committee of Management of the Institution is five years, whereas the term of the office bearers of the society is three years and the last elections concerning the institution as well as the society were held in the year 2015 in which the respondent No. 5 was elected as Manager.

5. Though, Sri Jain does not dispute the fact that after the term of the Committee of the Institution elected in 2015 ended in 2020, after due agenda, the elections of the Committee of the Institution were held on 22.11.2020 and the respondent No. 5 was elected as Manager, the dispute raised by the present writ petition relates to the elections allegedly held in relation to the Society on 22.11.2020.

6. Whereas, Sri Jain contends that the said elections were held without there being any agenda and their proceedings were produced for registration before the Assistant Registrar for the first time in the year 2022, Sri Awasthi submits that the petitioners were granted full opportunity pursuant to the notice issued by the Assistant Registrar in terms of the proviso attached to Section 4-A(2) of the Act but the petitioners kept mum for years, one after another, and when now certain new members have been enrolled by the society headed by the respondent No. 5, the dispute has been raised. Sri Awasthi submits that the complaint moved by the petitioners in the year 2022 has been rejected as baseless by the order impugned after perusing the relevant documents as well as examining the stand taken by both the sides.

7. Sri Jain has raised various submissions, one of which is alleged violation of the principles of nature justice, that is to say that, according to him, the written statement filed by the respondent No. 5 was taken on record on 27.7.2022 about which no opportunity was provided to the petitioner. The other argument is that no meeting in relation to the elections of the society was held on 22.11.2020 and agenda concerning the same was forged. He has placed reliance upon various affidavits filed by certain members in this regard.

8. Sri Jain further submits that considering the nature of the dispute, even if the Assistant Registrar was not satisfied with the stand taken by the petitioner, he could not have attached validity of elections dated 22.11.2020 in relation to the society and, therefore, the finding to that effect recorded in the order impugned is wholly without jurisdiction and the order impugned is unsustainable.

9. Sri I.P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, submits that the Assistant Registrar followed the due procedure of law and the order impugned records the stand taken by both the sides. He further submits that principles of nature justice were not violated and every proceeding was held in the presence of parties and they signed the relevant order sheet.

10. Sri Awasthi has raised various submissions in opposition to the writ petition. One of his arguments is that the Assistant Registrar has exercised the power under Section 4 of the Act, as amended in the State of U.P., and the other argument is that even if