Amitava Lala, J.- In this appeal the order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.10.2010 has been challenged. The dispute is only on the question whether the matter can be referred to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of Societies Registration Act, 1860 or not.
From the order impugned herein it appears that since there is no referable dispute, the matter cannot be referred to the Authority. The learned Single Judge held that it is settled in law that unless and until there is factual dispute between the parties, the Assistant Registrar is not obliged to refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority and he can decide the same himself. The learned Judge has further said that the findings recorded by the respondents is based on evidence and there are various disputed question of facts, therefore he thinks it proper not to refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority. According to the learned Single Judge, no illegality has been committed by the Registrar.
Shri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants has contended before this court, in answer to the query that they are holding much more members than one-fourth, which is required to be a condition precedent for referring the matter to the Prescribed Authority otherwise reference ought to be made by the Registrar.
We have gone through Section 25 of the Act and find that the reference by the Registrar or Assistant Registrar is supported by the word "may", therefore it is admitted position that the Registrar or Assistant Registrar is not bound to refer the matter to the Authority regarding election of Office Bearers. However, such part is disjuncted with the other parts where at least one-fourth members of the society can refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority. Further important factor is that the Prescribed Authority decides the dispute in summary manner not only with regard to "dispute" but also regarding to "doubt". In the instant case the Assistant Registrar decided the issue by holding that the case of the appellants herein was based on forged documents. Whenever the question is with regard to forged document, it is a question of fact, therefore whenever the factual situation is to be determined by any authority and there is scope of ratification of the same by any higher authority, the avenue should not have been closed down by the Assistant Registrar holding the same as sacrosanct. Shri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants has relied upon a judgment of a learned Single Judge in Committee of Management, Harijan Gurukul Dohri Ghat, Mau Vs. State of U.P. & Others, [2006(6) ADJ 415] to show its persuasive value and what are the circumstances in which the matter is required to be refereed to the Prescribed Authority.
Shri R.N. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel has contended before us that if such ratio is accepted by the Court then each and every matter is required to be referred to the Prescribed Authority, which is not the prescription of law. We agree with such submission of Mr. Pandey and we find that the power of Assistant Registrar is qualified with the word "may", but "may" always includes "may not". The word "may" or "may not" brings a doubt in the mind of the Court whether the fact is such, which will shut out the matter even at the stage of Assistant Registrar when there is a scope of ratification of the same by the Prescribed Authority. A Division Bench of this Court in Committee of Management and Others Vs. Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari and Others, [1987 UPLBEC 333] held that Section 25 covers dispute regarding the election before the Assistant Registrar and in such circumstances it is incumbent upon the Assistant Registrar to refer the dispute between the parties to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act. Assuming for the moment the contention of Mr. Pandey which is based on the observation of the Assistant Registrar is correct, then there is no dispute between the parties. Whatever dispute has been contemplated is on the basis of forged documents but obviously it leads to a doubt which can be rectified by the higher authority in the circumstances.
Against this background, particularly when the appellants' case is that they are supported by more than one-fourth members of the society, the matter will be taken care of by the Prescribed Authority and will be decided in summary manner as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, we set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.10.2006.
We direct the appellants to make an application to the Prescribed Authority within a period of two weeks from the date of obtaining a certified copy of the order along with supporting signatures of at least one-fourth members of the society and if it is done then the Prescribed Authority will complete the course of action in summary manner within a period of one month thereafter. We have not expressed anything with regard to factual aspects of the matter and it is kept open for the Prescribed Authority to independently decide the matter even taking into account the report and order of the Assistant Registrar.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of at the admission stage, on contest, however without imposing any costs.
(Justice Amitava Lala) I agree (Justice Ashok Srivastava) Dated:-7.12.2010 pks/