Manjive Shukla, J
1. Heard Shri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Jai Singh Parihar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondents No.1 and 2 as well as Sri Prabhakar Awasthi and Sri Manish Kumar Pandey, learned counsels appearing for Respondents No.3 and 4.
2. Petitioners through this writ petition have challenged the order dated 19.09.2023 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Jhansi Region, Jhansi, whereby he has declared election proceedings dated 30.10.2021 and election proceedings dated 10.6.2023 to be invalid. The Assistant Registrar vide order dated 19.09.2023 has also declared the Committee of Management of the society as time barred in exercise of powers under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and further for elections of the Committee of Management of the society has proceeded to determine valid members of the society i.e. electoral college under Section 4(B) of the Act of 1860.
3. At the very outset Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for Respondents No.3 and 4 has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this writ petition on the ground that pursuant to the impugned order dated 19.9.2023, Assistant Registrar, after hearing all the concerned parties, has taken decision under Section 4(B) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 in respect of the membership of the society on 05.04.2024. He has further raised objection that Petitioner No.1 i.e. Committee of Management Arya Kanya Pathshala Samiti, Shipri Bazaar, Jhansi is represented through Deputy Manager though under the bye- laws of the society, Deputy Manager is not authorised to file any writ petition on behalf of the Committee of Management of the society.
4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that Arya Kanya Pathshala Samiti, Shipri Bazaar, Jhansi is a society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The elections of the Committee of Management of the society took place on 13.6.2018. Later on, two office bearers of the Committee of Management of the society i.e. Deputy Manager and Treasurer died and therefore, in casual vacancies, Petitioners No.2 and 3 were co-opted as Deputy Manager and Treasurer respectively vide resolution of the Committee of Management dated 30.10.2021. After passing of the resolution on 30.10.2021, the list of the office bearers of the Committee of Management of the society was registered for 2022-23. The term of the Committee of Management of the society, which as per bye-laws is five years, was over therefore, fresh elections took place in the meeting of the general body on 10.6.2023 and thereafter election proceedings were placed before the Assistant Registrar for recognition of the elections. The Assistant Registrar has passed the impugned order dated 19.09.2023 whereby elections dated 30.10.2021 and 10.06.2023 have been declared invalid and further in exercise of powers under Section 25(2) of the Act of 1860 Committee of Management of the society has been declared as time barred and process of fresh elections has been initiated.
5. Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioners has submitted that any dispute or doubt in respect of the elections of the Committee of Management of the society can be adjudicated only by the Prescribed Authority on a reference made under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and Assistant Registrar does not have any jurisdiction to adjudicate over the validity of the elections of the Committee of Management of the society.
6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has invited attention of this Court towards the last three paragraphs of the impugned order dated 19.9.2023 and has submitted that sole basis for declaring the elections of Petitioners No.2 and 3 vide resolution dated 30.10.2021, as illegal, is that the President of the Committee of Management of the society, Smt. Urmila Kanchan has submitted a complaint to the Assistant Registrar on 14.8.2023 wherein she has stated that she has not signed the resolution dated 30.10.2021 and her signatures on the said resolution are forged, and only for this reason without even verifying the authenticity of the signatures on the resolution, the Assistant Registrar has taken the allegations of Smt. Urmila Kanchan as gospel truth and has declared the resolution dated 30.10.2021 as invalid and in consequence of the said declaration further elections held in the meeting dated 10.6.2023 have also been declared to be invalid.
7. Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioners has argued that the order dated 19.9.2023 is unsustainable in the eyes of law on three grounds; firstly the Assistant Registrar does not have any jurisdiction to adjudicate over the validity of the elections; secondly prior to declaring the elections of Petitioners No.2 and 3 as Deputy Manager and Treasurer respectively to be invalid, they have not been afforded any opportunity of hearing and in fact, no notice has been issued to them and thirdly, the version given by Smt. Urmila Kanchan has been taken to be gospel truth without even verifying the allegations on the basis of evidence.
8. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioners has also vehemently argued that so far as preliminary objections raised by Mr. Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for Respondents No.3 and 4 in respect of maintainability of this writ petition are concerned, they are not sustainable as if it is held by this court that the order dated 19.09.2023 is without jurisdiction and the declaration made by the Assistant Registrar in respect of validity of the elections was not within his jurisdiction, the subsequent orders passed by the Assistant Registrar and elections (if any) in furtherance of the order dated 19.09.2023 automatically ceases to hold the field. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioners in respect of second objection raised by Mr. Prabhakar Awasthi has submitted that the Assistant Registrar vide order dated 19.09.2023 has declared the elections of Petitioners No.2 and 3 as Deputy Manager and Treasurer as invalid, therefore even if this writ petition may not be maintainable on behalf of the Committee of Management of the society i.e. Petitioner No.1, the writ petition is very well maintainable on behalf of Petitioners No.2 and 3 as they are the persons aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19.09.2023.
9. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioners in support of his arguments, that if the basic order is quashed by this court, the consequential orders automatically ceases to exist in the eyes of law, has relied on the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court on 24.8.2022 in Special Appeal No.306 of 2022 (Society-Gramin Siksha Prasar Samiti, Pratapgarh and another Vs. State Of U.P. and others) and has submitted that the Division Bench of this Court has held in categorical terms that once the basic order is without jurisdiction and illegal, consequential orders passed on the strength of said order cannot sustain in the eyes of law.
10. Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioners has concluded his arguments and has submitted that the order dated 19.09.2023 passed by the Assistant Registrar is without jurisdiction and is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice therefore, the order dated 19.09.2023 is liable to be quashed and writ petition is liable to be allowed by this Court.
11. Mr. Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for Respondents No.3 and 4 has vehemently argued that consequent to order dated 19.09.2023 election schedule has already been declared and elections are to take place tomorrow i.e. on 26.04.2024 therefore, it would not be proper for this Court to show interference in the election process, at this stage because it is settled law through catena of judgments of this Court that once election process starts, that should not be interfered by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Awasthi has further argued that so far as opportunity of hearing to Petitioners No.2 and 3, prior to passing of order dated 19.09.2023, is concerned, it comes out from the order itself that the Assistant Registrar directed the Petitioner No.2 to produce certain documents but he deliberately did not appear before the Assistant Registrar and also did not produce the documents. Mr. Awasthi has also argued that once Smt. Urmila Kanchan who was the President of the Committee of Management of the society filed a complaint before the Assistant Registrar and said that her signatures on the resolution dated 30.10.2021 are forged, the Assistant Registrar has checked her signatures from the other available records and has accepted her version and ultimately has declared the resolution dated 30.10.2021 as invalid.
12. Mr. Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for Respondents No.3 and 4 has also invited attention of this Court towards judgment dated 15.5.2017 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.284 of 2017 (Shailendra Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) and has submitted that in the said judgment it has been categorically held that once the election proceedings are placed before the Assistant Registrar, he has every right to look into the basic aspect, as to whether the person who has filed the election proceedings and claims to be elected as office bearer of the Committee of Management of the society is primary member of the society or not and once the Assistant Registrar finds that he is not even the primary member of the society, the Assistant Registrar has every right to declare the said elections as invalid and there the requirement of making reference to Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 shall not arise.
13. I have considered the rival arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties. I find that Petitioners No.2 and 3 were elected/co-opted on the posts of Deputy Manager and Treasurer respectively vide resolution passed by the Committee of Management of the society on 30.10.2021. The remaining term of the Committee of Management of the society for which Petitioners No.2 and 3 were elected/co-opted was till 13.6.2023. After the term of the Committee of Management of the society was over and fresh elections were held on 10.6.2023 and proceedings of election were placed before the Assistant Registrar, for the first time on 14.8.2023, Smt. Urmila Kanchan claiming herself to be President of the Committee of Management of the society submitted a complaint before the Assistant Registrar and alleged that her signatures on the resolution dated 30.10.2021 are forged.
14. This Court finds that on the date of complaint i.e. on 14.8.2023, the term of the Committee of Management of the society in which Petitioners No.2 and 3 were elected/co-opted was already over and therefore, there was no requirement for the Assistant Registrar to adjudicate over the validity of the resolution dated 30.10.2021 but the Assistant Registrar has considered the allegations levelled by Smt. Urmila Kanchan and believing the said allegations as gospel truth, has straightaway declared the resolution dated 30.10.2021 as invalid. So far as the declaration of the elections held on 10.6.2023 as invalid, is concerned, this Court finds that only one reason has been assigned by the Assistant Registrar that since earlier resolution dated 30.10.2021 has been held to be invalid therefore, elections held on 10.06.2023 are also invalid.
15. It is well settled proposition of law that any quasi judicial authority cannot enlarge its jurisdiction to that of the jurisdiction conferred on him under the statute. Under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the Assistant Registrar has not been conferred any jurisdiction to adjudicate over the validity of the elections and if he while deciding any other issue comes to the conclusion that there is some dispute or doubt in respect of the validity of the elections of the Committee of Management of the society, he has only one option i.e. to make a reference to the prescribed authority under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 for adjudication over the validity of the elections. In the present case, from bare perusal of the impugned order dated 19.09.2023 it clearly comes out that the Assistant Registrar has decided regarding validity of the resolution dated 30.10.2021 by which Petitioners No. 2 and 3 were elected/co-opted therefore, the adjudication made by the Assistant Registrar is absolutely without jurisdiction as he does not have any power under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 to adjudicate over the validity of the elections. The Assistant Registrar has also exceeded his jurisdiction while declaring the elections held on 10.06.2023 to be invalid only on the ground that since earlier resolution dated 30.10.2021 has been held to be invalid therefore, elections held on 10.06.2023 are also invalid.
16. This court is of the view that the order dated 19.09.2023 passed by the Assistant Registrar is absolutely without jurisdiction as he has no authority to adjudicate over the validity of the elections either held on 30.10.2021 or held on 10.06.2023. The Assistant Registrar vide order dated 19.9.2023 has declared the Committee of Management of the society as time barred on the ground of declaration of elections held on 30.10.2021 and 10.06.2023 as invalid and has further directed all the parties to appear before him for deciding the primary membership of the society for determining the electoral college for fresh elections.
17. Once this court has found that order dated 19.09.2023 is without jurisdiction, any order passed consequent to order dated 19.09.2023 i.e. order dated 05.04.2024 and election process (if any) cannot sustain in the eyes of law.
18. Though Mr. Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for Respondents No. 3 & 4 has tried to read down in between the lines of the order dated 19.09.2023 to show that opportunity of hearing was provided to Petitioners No. 2 & 3 but the entire order does not disclose that at any point of time notice was issued to Petitioners No. 2 & 3 and they have been heard. It is also pertinent to mention here that petitioners in their writ petition have taken a categorical ground that prior to passing of the order dated 19.09.2023 they have not been afforded opportunity of hearing at any point of time and the said averment has not been denied by filing any counter affidavit.
19. Now this court proceeds to consider the judgment cited by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners. The Division Bench of this Court has dealt with the issue involved in this writ petition in detail and vide judgment rendered on 24.08.2022 in Special Appeal No. 306 of 2022 (Society-Gramin Siksha Prasar Samiti, Pratapgarh and another Vs. State Of U.P. and others) has categorically held that if the original/basic order is without jurisdiction, the consequential exercise carried out by the Assistant Registrar either in the form of election or in the form of determination of electoral college are inconsequential. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment rendered in the case of Society-Gramin Siksha Prasar Samiti (supra) are extracted as under :-
“21. It is true that the Registrar can hold the election under sub-section (2) of section 25 in a case where the Committee of Management has been declared time barred. But in the present case as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant and as is borne out from the pleadings and the documents placed on record of this appeal, which seem to be the part of the record of the writ petition as well, the elections were held in time and relevant list of members and the Committee of Management were filed from time to time before the Assistant Registrar and no objection was raised by him nor any dispute was raised ever by anybody. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the writ petition ought to have been decided after summoning and perusing the record of the society from the office of the Assistant Registrar and after verifying the facts of the case. It is also required to be considered as to when the respondent no.4 participated and contested the Election on the basis of the list of members furnished by the Society without any demur, whether he could have raised any such dispute in regard to the membership and previous elections.
22. In the facts of this case, this Court is of the opinion that once the elections were from held time to time and the relevant documents and list were submitted by the society, the Committee of Management could not have been declared time barred merely because the elections of the Committee of Management of the Society were held alongwith the elections of Committee of Management of the college under the supervision of the Observer nominated by the D.I.O.S., particularly when no objection or dispute was ever raised. However if the Elections have been held in time and the necessary formalities have been completed thereafter, it is nothing but an Election dispute in regard to the present election, which can be decided by the Prescribed Authority Authority only under Section 25(1) of Act of 1860.
23. A coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Committee of Management, Anjuman Kherul Almin, Allahaganj and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others (Supra), after considering the provisions of Section 4 and 25 (1) of the Act of 1860 has held that once an application for taking on record the name of the office-bearers and an objection as to the validity of the office-bearers who were elected have been filed, the Registrar, considering under Section 25 (1), ought to refer the matter to the prescribed authority. The relevant paragraphs 7 to 11 of the judgment are extracted here-in-below:-
"7. Under Section 4 of the Societies' Registration Act, 1860, as amended in the State of U.P. the following provision has been made:-
"4. (1) Annual list of managing body to be filed.-Once in every year, on or before the fourteenth day succeeding the day on which, according to the rules of the Society, the annual general meeting of the society is held, or, if the rules do not provide for an annual general meeting, in the month of January, a list shall be filed with the Registrar of the names, addresses and occupations of the governors, council, directors, committee, or other governing body then entrusted with the management of the affairs of the society.
Provided that if the managing body is elected after the last submission of the list, the counter signature of the old members, shall, as far as possible, be obtained on the list. If the old office-bearers do not counter-sign the list, the Registrar may, in his discretion, issue a public notice or notice to such persons as he thinks fit inviting objections within a specified period and shall decide all objections received within the said period.
(2) Together with list mentioned in sub-section (1) there shall be sent to the Registrar a copy of the memorandum of association including any alteration, extension or abridgment of purposes made under section 12, and of the rules of the society corrected up to date and certified by not less than three of the members of the said governing body to be a correct copy and also a copy of the balance-sheet for the proceeding year of account."
8. The proviso to Section 4, as amended in the State of U.P., states that if the managing body is elected after the last submission of the list the counter signature of the old members, shall, as far as possible, be obtained on the list. If the old office bearers do not countersign the list the Registrar may in his discretion issue a public notice inviting objections and decide all the objections received within the said period.
9. Section 25(1) as applicable in the State of U.P. provides as follows:-
"25.Dispute regarding election of office-bearers.-(1) The prescribed authority may, on a reference made to it by the Registrar or by at least one-fourth of the members of a society registered in the Uttar Pradesh, hear and decide in a summary manner any doubt or dispute in respect of the election or continuance in office of an officer-bearers of such society, and may pass such orders in respect thereof as it deems fit:
[Provided that the election of an office-bearer shall be set aside where the prescribed authority is satisfied-
(a) that any corrupt practice has been committed by such office-bearer; or
(b) that the nomination of any candidate has been improperly rejected; or
(c) that the result of the election in so far as it concerns such office-bearer has been materially affected by the improper acceptance of any nomination or by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void or by any non-compliance with the provisions of any rules of the society."
10. Both these provisions have been harmonized in the judgment of the Division Bench in All-India Council (Supra) where it was held as follows:-
Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act as amended by the State Legislature enacts a comprehensive code and creates a designated forum or tribunal for adjudication in a summary manner of all disputes or doubts in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office-bearer of such society. It also provides the grounds upon which the election of an office-bearer can be set aside. The procedure to be followed for filling up of the vacancies arising from the decisions rendered by the Prescribed Authority under Sub-section (i)of Section 25 has also been laid down(Section 25(2).
7.It will, therefore, be seen that insofar as disputes or doubts in respect of the election or continuance in office of the office-bearers of a society registered in Uttar Pradesh are concerned, the Legislature has created a specific forum and laid down an exhaustive procedure for determination of the same under Section 25. There is no other provision, express or otherwise, providing for determination of such disputes specifically. It is settled law that where, as here, the Legislature creates a specific forum and lays an exhaustive procedure for determination of a particular class of disputes in respect of matters covered by the statute, such disputes can be determined only in that forum and in the manner prescribed thereunder and not otherwise. If, therefore, a dispute is raised with regard to the election or continuance in office of an office-bearer of a society registered in Uttar Pradesh, the same has to be decided only by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) and not by the Registrar, save, of course, to the decision of the Prescribed Authority being subject to the result of a civil suit."
11. The judgment of the Division Bench came up for consideration in Gram Shiksha Sudhar Samiti (Supra). In the subsequent judgment the Division Bench held that the earlier judgment has harmonized the provisions of both Sections 4 and 25 and what can be inquired into under Section 25 of the Act, cannot be gone into under the proviso to Section 4. In that case, the Division Bench held that the learned Single Judge ought to have set aside an order of the Registrar dated 11 July 2010 and ought to have directed the Registrar to refer the objection to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1). The Division Bench held that once an application for taking on record the name of the office bearers and an objection as to the validity of the office bearers who were duly elected has been filed, the Registrar considering under Section 25(1) ought to refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority. Undoubtedly, in the subsequent decision in the Committee of Management (Supra) it has been held that the Registrar "is not a post office for referring any and every dispute". The Division Bench there held that more than three years after the holding of an election there was no reason to entertain a petition at the belated stage."
24. Another coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Malti Devi Vs. State of U.P. and Others (Supra), has held that all the issues pertaining to the election and continuance of the office-bearers of a registered society are necessarily to be examined by the prescribed authority under Section 25 of the Act of 1860 and it is not within the competence of the Assistant Registrar to enter into such disputes and the legal position in this regard is well settled.
25. Similar view has been taken by coordinate Benches of this Court, in the cases of Gram Shiksha Sudhar Samiti, Junior High School, Sikandra, District Kanpur Dehat and Another Vs. Registrar, firms, Societies and Chits, U.P. Lucknow and Others (Supra) and All India Counsel, through Bharat Dharam Maha Mandal, Lahura Bir, Varanasi and Another Vs. Assistant Registrar and Another (Supra).
26. One of the contentions raised by learned counsel for the respondent no.4 is that since after passing of the impugned orders by the Assistant Registrar the fresh elections have been held therefore without challenging the same the present appeal is not maintainable. Suffice would it be to say that once the basic order goes the superstructure would automatically fall. Applying this well recognized legal principle on the present case, we find that the judgment and order in the instant case was passed by the learned Single Judge on 09.06.2022 and the elections have been held, on the basis of impugned orders challenged in writ petition, subsequent thereto, therefore if the impugned orders are quashed, the subsequent action will automatically fall. Our this view is fortified by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Others (Supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case has held that it is a settled legal proposition that if initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root of the order. The relevant paragraphs 107 to 110 are extracted below:-
"107. It is a settled legal proposition that if initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root of the order. In such a fact-situation, the legal maxim "sublato fundamento cadit opus" meaning thereby that foundation being removed, structure/work falls, comes into play and applies on all scores in the present case.
108. In Badrinath v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 3243; and State of Kerala v. Puthenkavu N.S.S. Karayogam & Anr., (2001) 10 SCC 191, this Court observed that once the basis of a proceeding is gone, all consequential acts, actions, orders would fall to the ground automatically and this principle is applicable to judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative proceedings equally.
109. Similarly in Mangal Prasad Tamoli (dead) by Lrs. v. Narvadeshwar Mishra (dead) by Lrs. & Ors., (2005) 3 SCC 422, this Court held that if an order at the initial stage is bad in law, then all further proceedings, consequent thereto, will be non est and have to be necessarily set aside.
110. In C. Albert Morris v. K. Chandrasekaran & Ors., (2006) 1 SCC 228, this Court held that a right in law exists only and only when it has a lawful origin. (See also: Upen Chandra Gogoi v. State of Assam & Ors., (1998) 3 SCC 381; Satchidananda Misra v. State of Orissa & Ors., (2004) 8 SCC 599; Regional Manager, SBI v. Rakesh Kumar Tewari, (2006) 1 SCC 530; and Ritesh Tewari & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 3823).
111. Thus, in view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the orders impugned being a nullity, cannot be sustained. As a consequence, subsequent proceedings/orders/FIR/ investigation stand automatically vitiated and are liable to be declared non est."
27. So far as the question of maintainability of the appeal on behalf of the appellant no.2 is concerned, this Court is of the view that since she was elected as Manager in the elections held on 26.12.2021 which stands cancelled by the impugned orders, the appellant no.2 is fully competent to challenge the same. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Nazeer ETC Vs. Salafi Trust & Another ETC (Supra), relied by learned counsel for the respondent no.4 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It has been held in the said case that a society registered under the Societies Registration Act is entitled to sue and be sued, only in terms of its by-laws and the by-laws may authorise the President or Secretary or any other office bearer to institute or defend a suit for and on behalf of the society. In the present case the appellant no.2 is claiming herself to be the Manager of the Society on the basis of elections held on 26.12.2021, the proceedings of which were already filed before the Assistant Registrar, whereafter the respondent no.4 raised the dispute and the same has been decided against her.”
20. This Court finds that the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment rendered in the case of Society-Gramin Siksha Prasar Samiti (supra) has categorically held the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate over the validity of the elections of the Committee of Management of the society and once the order passed by the Assistant Registrar is found to be without jurisdiction, the subsequent orders and election proceedings automatically collapses without there being any fresh challenge. This Court is of the view that the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Division Bench squarely covers the issues involved in the present writ petition.
21. Mr. Prabhakar Awasthi has relied on the judgment dated 15.05.2017 rendered in Special Appeal No. 284 of 2017 (Shailendra Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) wherein the Division Bench of this court has held that in the matters of elections, the Assistant Registrar can see the basic facts i.e. the person filing election proceedings and claiming to be the officer bearer of the Committee of Management of the society is primary member of the society or not. The relevant paragraph of the judgment rendered in the case of Shailendra Singh (supra) is extracted as under :-
“The powers conferred under the aforesaid sections clearly demonstrate that the Registrar is the principal Executive Officer to exercise his power in respect of the affairs of the Society. Thus, his power under Section 4 cannot be divested only on the ground that under Section 25 he has the authority to refer the dispute pertaining to election and continuance of office bearers and, accordingly, even if some frivolous dispute is raised in respect of the election or continuance of the office-bearers, the same should be mandatorily referred. If there is a dispute of two parallel groups of the society, the Registrar can always examine whether the persons of rival group, who have raised the dispute, are member of the society or not. He can record his prima facie satisfaction in this regard as to who has the authority to convene the meeting and hold elections; persons who have participated are valid members of society; elections have been held as per bye-laws of society and if he is satisfied that the dispute is genuine and it is a dispute inter se between the members of the society, then he can refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority.”
22. So far as the judgment cited by Mr. Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No. 3 and 4 is concerned, I have already recorded my views in earlier paragraphs of this order that the Assistant Registrar while passing the order dated 19.09.2023 has not decided the basic facts i.e. the person claiming to be the officer bearer of the Committee of Management of the society is primary member or not but has adjudicated over the validity of the elections and has held that two elections i.e. election held on 30.10.2021 and election held on 10.06.2023 are invalid therefore, the judgment relied on by Mr. Prabhakar Awasthi is of no help to Respondents No.3 and 4.
23. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated 19.09.2023 passed by the Assistant Registrar and consequential order dated 05.04.2024 along with the consequential election proceedings (if any) are set aside. Matter is remitted to Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Jhansi Region, Jhansi to hear the matter afresh and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, after providing opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties.
