JUDGMENT O.P. Gars, J.
1. These are two connected writ petitions in which common questions of law and facts are involved. They are, therefore, being decided by this common judgment.
2. There is a registered society, known as Janta Junior High School. Anapur. Dashrathpur. district Jaunpur, which was for the first time registered on 16.9.1994 under the Societies Registration Act. The society has its own bye-laws and also Scheme of Administration, in pursuance of which, it runs as Higher Secondary School, known as Dwarika Prasad Higher Secondary School, Jaunpur, which is an aided and recognised institution. Incidentally, in the present case, there is a common committee of management of the society as well as the Institution which it runs. The period of the committee of management is three years.
3. The last elections of the committee of management admittedly were held on 8.8.1993 in which Mata Prasad Misra and Devta Deen Pandey were respectively elected as President and Manager. The term of the committee of management was to expire on 7.9.1996 by which date the new committee of management should have come into being. Therefore, with the permission dated 23.8.1996 obtained from District Inspector of Schools (for short 'D.I.O.S.'), the election schedule was published on 24.8.1996 in Tarunmitra. The nominations were to be (lied by 30.8.1996 and the date of withdrawal of the nominations was 31.8.1996. The poll was to be conducted, if necessary, on 1.9.1996. This schedule was published and the election process initiated under the authority of the previous committee of management of which Devta Deen Pandey was the manager. Indrajeet Tewari said to be the Gram Pradhan of Sabha Chandpur (Bheelampur) was appointed as the election officer. It is alleged that in the election held on 1.9.1996, Devta Deen was elected as manager of the new committee of management. On the other hand, Sabhajeet Pandey, respondent No. 3. claimed that he was elected as manager of the new committee of management. Both Devta Deen, on the one hand, and Sabhajeet Pandey, on the other, applied for recognition of their respective committee of management and attestation of signatures. Naturally, the D.I.O.S. was in a fix. Having realised the fact that there is a dispute between the rival committees of management, he referred the matter on 15.10.96 to the Deputy Director of Education (for short 'D.D.E.'). Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh. under the provisions of Section 16A (7) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). By the impugned order dated 15.7.1997, Annexure-16 to the Writ Petition No. 24998 of 1997, the D.D.E. has come to the conclusion that both the elections, as set up by Devta Deen on the one hand, and Sabhajeet Pandey, on the other, are invalid and unacceptable, as they have been held contrary to the amended scheme of administration. He, therefore, appointed the D.I.O.S. as the Prabandh Sanchalak with the direction that he shall get the new committee of management constituted after election in which 121 members of the general body were to take part. The list of 122 members duly authenticated formed part of the Impugned order. !t is this order, which has been challenged by Devta Deen Pandey, petitioner No. 2 on the grounds that the election to the committee of management of which he is the manager was clearly in accordance with the piovisions of the scheme of administration whereas respondent No. 3. Sabhajeet Pandey has based his election on fake documents ; that there were only 56 members of the general body as would appear from the list submitted before the Registrar on 3.3.1993 and thereafter no member was enrolled and that it was bounden statutory obligation of the D.D.E. to record a finding as to which of the rival committees of management was in actual control of the affairs of the institution and in the absence of such a finding he had no jurisdiction to direct that the Prabandh Sanchalak shall hold fresh elections by the participation of 121 members of the general body. After the passing of the order by the D.D.E., it appears that another order dated 19.1.1998 passed by the Assistant Registrar. Chits. Societies and Funds, came into being in favour of Sabhajeet Pandey. To challenge this order, another Writ Petition No. 4267 of 1998 has been filed, by the Committee of Management, of which Devta Deen claims himself to be the Manager.
4. The order dated 19.1.1998, Annexure-16 to the Writ Petition No. 4267 of 1998, passed by the Assistant Registrar Chits, Societies and Firms has been challenged primarily on the ground that the Assistant Registrar has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute of election of office bearers of the committee of management of the society and the proper course to be adopted by him was to have made a reference to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, that the impugned order was passed without, affording any opportunity of hearing. It was also asserted that Sabhajeet Pandey, respondent No. 3 has based his election on fake documents and by forging the signatures of Devta Deen Pandey, Manager and Mata Prasad Misra, President of the Society.
5. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, assisted by Sri I. R. Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners ; Sri H. S. N. Tripathi for Sri Sabhajeet Pandey, as well as learned standing counsel.
6. As said above, in the instant case, there is a common committee of management both for the society known as Janta Junior Higher Secondary School. Anapur, Dashrathpur, Jaunpur as well as the institution which run under its aegis and is now known as Dwarika Prasad Higher Secondary School, Dashrathpur, Jaunpur. The earlier name of the institution was also Janta Higher Secondary School but by order dated 27.8.1984, passed by the D.D.E., the name of the school was changed. It is admitted fact that the last election of the committee of management was held on 8.8.1993 in which Mata Prasad Misra, Udal Raj. Devta Deen Pandey and Ramjeet Pandey were elected respectively as president, vice-president, Manager and Deputy Manager. Before expiry of the term of the committee of management, election schedule was notified on 24.8.1996 and the elections were to be held under the direct control of one Indra Jeet Tewari. Gram Pradhan who was appointed as Election Officer. Sabhajeet Pandey-respondent has taken the plea that on 30.8.1996 a meeting of general body was convened but Sri Mata Prasad Misra. Devta Deen Pandey and Matroo Ram Yadav, Principal of the college did not turn up with the result an exception was taken about their absence and it was unanimously resolved by the committee that the elections be held under the overall supervision of Om Prakash Misra who was appointed as election officer. It is alleged that Raj Narain Misra was elected as President while Sabhajeet Pandey came to be elected as Manager. Both the rival committees of management did not produce the authentic list of members of general body to D.D.E. who was seized of the malter on a reference made to him under Section 16A (7) of the Act. It transpired that Devta Deen Pandey held election with the assistance of 58 members of the general body while membership of the general body was found to be 121. D.D.E. has recorded the cogent reasons to come to the conclusion that the elections of both the rival committees of management were not in accordance with provisions of the scheme of administration and, therefore, none of the committees could be recognised for the purpose of managing and administering the affairs of the institution. Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the D.D.E. had no power to discard the claim of both of rival committees of management and to appoint an authorised controller to hold fresh elections. It was also urged that the D.D.E. had no jurisdiction to decide the question of validity of the elections as his role was limited only to recording of finding about the 'actual control' of the affairs of the institution.
7. It is now well-established proposition of law that while exercising the power under Section 16A (7J of the Act, the D.D.E. Is. of necessity, required to go incidentally into the question of validity of the elections as finding with regard to validity or otherwise of the election has a bearing on the question of actual control of the affairs of the institution. The question of actual control is normally inextricably mixed up with the issue of validity of the elections set up by the two groups. This view was taken by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Committee of Management, Janta inter College, Thekma. Brijauli, District Azamgarh v. Dy. Director of Education, VIIIth Region, Gorakhpur and others. 1982 UPLBEC 38, wherein it was observed as follows :
"Before the Dy. Director of Education, the question required to be decided was as to who was in control of management. This question was linked with the decision about the validity of the election pleaded by the petitioner as well as by the respondent No. 3. For this purpose, Deputy Director of Education should have examined the evidence of the parties and given a finding on the same. He did not address himself to this controversy and was led away by irrelevant consideration for deciding the dispute referred to him. As the finding given by him is based on irrelevant grounds the order cannot be sustained."
This observation implies that it was necessary for the D.D.E. to have entered into the controversy about the validity of the election or otherwise and unless he records a finding on this point, he cannot reach a correct conclusion about the fact as to which of the rival parties was in actual control of the affairs of the institution. A reference may also be made to another decision of the Division Bench in Committee of Management, Bhakt Vatsal Inter College, Bichhwa, District Mainpuri and others v. Regional Deputy Director of Education Agra and others, (1988) UPLBEC 402, in which it was observed that the D.D.E. has jurisdiction to examine the validity of election also in order to decide the controversy about the actual control. In Committee of Management, Mahatma Gandhi Inter College, Madhpura District Farrukhabad and another v. Dy. Director of Education, Kanpur Region, Kanpur and others, (1992) 2 UPLBEC 1042, also it was held that D.D.E. can decide the validity of election only when it arises Incidentally.
8. In the instant case, on the basis of the material placed before the D.D.E., he has rightly come to the conclusion that the elections set up by the rival committees of management were not held according to the amended provisions of the scheme of administration and that there was also a serious dispute about the number of members of the general body. This finding does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. When there was no committee of management in existence and the term of the old committee of management had come to an end. In that event, the only course left open to the D.D.E. was to appoint a Prabandh Sanchalak with a direction to constitute a new committee of management at the earliest. The impugned order passed by the D.D.E. In the present case appointing the authorised controller is fortified by decision of this Court in Committee of Management, Rashtriya Inter College Mahreon Puraon, Jaunpur and another v. D.D.E., XIVth Region Azamagarh and others. 1996 (31 UPLBEC 1686. A Division Bench of this Court in an earlier decision in Prithivi Pal Tripathi and others v. D.I.O.S. and others, (1993) I UPLBEC 235 has ruled that under the scheme of administration, the old committee was not entitled to function after the expiry of three years and one month's time and this follows that the old committee of management was not entitled to hold and election and it was only the authorised controller appointed by the Regional D.D.E. who was entitled to run the affairs of the management and he alone could hold election of the committee of management. There is also another recent authoritative pronouncement of a Division Bench of this Court in Sukhpura Inter College, Sukhpura, District Ballia through its Manager Sri Ram Bilas Singh and another v. Alleged Committee of Management, Sukhpura Inter College Sukhpura Distt. Ballia through its alleged Manager Sri Nagendra Singh and others, 11998) 2 LBESR 150 (All). It was held that it is not open to a committee of management or its office-bearers to hold elections after the term of such committee has come to an end. Fresh elections are to be held by a Prabandh Sanchalak appointed by Joint Director and the provisions of scheme of administration of the institution has to be followed. The things as they stand today, are that there is no committee of management in existence. The last admitted committee of management has run out its term, it cannot, obviously, function nor it can now organise the elections. There has to be some via-media to overcome the statements and vacuum. In the light of the above facts, it was not only in the interest of the institution and its students but also quite apt in the circumstances that an order for appointment of a Prabandh Sanchalak, who could hold the election, was passed and, therefore, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24998 of 1997 fails.
9. Now, the dispute is with regard to the number of members of the general body of the society. Undoubtedly members of the genera! body have to participate in the election to constitute fresh committee of management and its office bearers. Now the question is. as has been raised in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4267 of 1998, whether the order dated 19.1.1998 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Chits. Firm and Societies, Varanasi renewing the society, is illegal for the various grounds taken in the said writ petition.
10. It is an indubitable fact that Janta Junior High School, Anapur, Dashrathpur, district Jaunpur, was initially registered on 16.9.1994. A certificate of registration/renewal under Section 3A of the Societies Registration Act was issued for at least six consecutive times on the basis of the documents submitted by Devta Deen Pandey and the society was renewed till 9.10.1995. The dispute, as a matter of fact, arose for the first time in the year 1993 when Sabhajeet Pandey applied for renewal of the society on seventh occasion by filing the documents and the list of members of the general body. Devta Deen Pandey also applied for seventh renewal of the society asserting himself to be the Manager. In the wake of this dispute, the Assistant Registrar fixed the case for hearing on a number of dates and afforded opportunity to the parties to submit documents in support of their respective contentions. The Assistant Registrar did not accept the list of the Committee of Management submitted by Devta Deen and the documents submitted by Sabhajeet Pandey for the purposes of action under Section 4 (1) of the Societies Registration Act, were accepted.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that since there was a dispute between the two rival contestants, about the right to manage the affairs of the Society, the proper course to be adopted by the Assistant Registrar was to have referred the matter under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act to the Prescribed Authority. In support of his contention. Sri Ashok Khare placed reliance on the decisions in Vijay Narain Singh v. Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, U. P. Lucknow and others, 1981 UPLBEC 308 (DB) ; Committee of Management and others v. Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari and others, (1987) 1 UPLBEC 333 ; Purva Bazar Educational Society Gorakhpur v. Asstt. Registrar, Firms, Chits and Societies, Gorakhpur. (1988) 1 UPLBEC 515 (DB) ; All India Council and another v. Firms, Societies and Chits, AIR 1988 All 236 ; Muslim Welfare Society Machlinagar v. Asstt. Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, 1991 AWC 1311 ; Khoproha Educational Society and others u. Asstt. Registrar. Firms Societies and Chits, 1993 (2) UPLBEC 890 and Company Managemenf v. Asstt. Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits. 1994 HVD (All) Vol. III 389 (DB).to fortify his submission that if there is any doubt or dispute about the election of the committee of management or the office bearers, such a dispute cannot be resolved by Deputy Registrar in exercise of his powers under Sections 3A and 4 of the Societies Registration Act and that he is left with no option but to refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority for being decided under the provisions of Section 25 of the said Act. On the other hand. Sri H, S. N. Tripathi, learned counsel for Sri Sabhajeet Pandey maintained that the impugned order passed by the Assistant Registrar is, in effect, an order under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, and, therefore, no exception can be taken about it. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in Committee of Management, Kishan Shiksha Sadan, Bankshai Distt. Basti and another v. Asstt. Registrar. Chits, Firms and Societies. Gorakhpur, (1995) 2 UPLBEC 1242 and Shiksha Parishad Nagwa. Ballla and another v. Dy. Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits and ofhers, decided on 28.10.1997, in Special Appeal No. 22 of 1996).
12. After having thoroughly scanned the various submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the law on the point, I find that it is not a case in which the Assistant Registrar, while passing order under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act usurped the power of Prescribed Authority as contemplated under Section 25 of the said Act. At this stage, it would be proper to make a reference to a recent decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Shiksha Prasar Samiti. Allahabad and another v. Registrar Societies Chits, and Firms, U. P. Lucknow and others, (1998) 1 UPLBEC 339, in which it was observed that in a case in which both the sides are seeking renewal of registration of the same society, they cannot be said to be aggrieved party, if the renewal of the registration is granted by the authority concerned. The renewal is of the registration of the society and it is for the benefit of all the members and office-bearers of the society. There may be a situation that two rival factions of the same society may apply for renewal separately and the renewal may be granted at the instance of one of them but the ultimate beneficiary shall be the society as a whole and not the individuals alone seeking renewal. In such a situation, after renewal of the registration of the society, the dispute about renewal must be taken to have come to an end. A stranger cannot and should not be allowed to claim renewal of registration of society.
13. The object and scope of the provisions of Sections 4 and 25 of the Societies Registration Act are quite separate and distinct. The Assistant Registrar, without going into the question of validity or otherwise of the elections, can look into the matter as to who is the person competent to file necessary documents as required by Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act. In Kranti Kumar Chaturvedi and others v. District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur and others, 1995 (3) ESC 166 (AID. a Division Bench of this Court has clearly ruled that Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act would be attracted if 'there is dispute between two rival parties each of whom is claiming to be validly elected body' and that the Section' is also attracted when a party challenges the legality or otherwise of the election of particular act of office . bearers of the society on the grounds enumerated in Section 25 of the said Act.' In another case Shambhu Kumar Tripathi v. Asstt. Registrar. Firms, Societies and Chits, AIR 1994 (All) 209. It was observed as follows :
".....It is evident from Section 3A that renewal of the certificate of registration of a society is within the exclusive jurisdiction/domain of the Registrar which term includes Assistant Registrar. Firms, Chits and Societies. The power to renew a certificate of registration being expressly and exclusively conferred upon-the Registrar, the Registrar would be deemed to possess all incidental and ancillary powers as may be considered necessary for an effective exercise of the power under Section 3A of the Act."
14. In view of the above decisions, it cannot be said that the Assistant Registrar did not have the authority or jurisdiction to take Into consideration the document filed by Sabhajeet Pandey for renewal of the certificate of registration and to file the documents as required under Section 4 (1) of the Societies Registration Act. If the petitioners are really aggrieved of the order passed by the Assistant Registrar or they feel that there is genuine and real dispute about the election of the rival committees of management, in that event, there is nothing to prevent them to approach the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, which contemplates that independent of the reference made by the Assistant Registrar, not less than one fourth of the members of the society may make a reference for decision by the Prescribed Authority.
15. In view of the fact that the parties are at loggerheads and their tiligative zeal is not to stand satisfied in the near future as they are Imbued with an unsatiable desire to grab power, it would be in the interest of the Institution and the welfare of the students that the elections should be held as early as possible. The Court is concerned with the paramount consideration of the well-being of the institution and its students for whom the committee of management and its office-bearers exist. Therefore. In order to put an end to all controversies about the previous election, it is necessary that Prabandh Sanchalak as appointed by the D.D.E. sets in motion to hold the elections, if not already held, and to complete the process of election on the basis of the existing list of enrolled members of the society within a period of 45 days from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment and order before him.
16. Both the writ petitions are dismissed subject to the above observations, without any order as to costs.