JUDGMENT O.P. Garg, J.
1. Heard Sri Ateeq Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri I.R. Singh, who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
2. By means of the present writ petition, it is prayed that the order dated 6.7.1998, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, passed by the respondent No. 1 Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, U. P., Varanasi be quashed and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 be directed not to pass any consequential order or to interfere in the smooth functioning of Committee of Management of which Ghulam RabbanI, petitioner No. 2 is the Manager.
3. Madarsa Islamla Garaundi, Adalhat, Mirzapur is admittedly a minority institution. The election of the Committee of Management was admittedly held on 22.1.95 in which Ghulam RabbanI and Abdul Khaliq were elected as President and Manager, respectively. The term of the Committee was three years, meaning thereby, it was to expire on 21.1.1998. The committee consisted of 12 members out of which 6 were office bearers and the remaining six members also Included the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Shaukat Ali respondent No. 4, who was the member of the committee, published a news item that on 7.10.1997, a no confidence motion has been passed against Ghulam Rabbani and Abdul Khaliq and that Shaukat All has been appointed as Manager. The petitioners are alleged to have called a meeting of the General Body on 19.10.1997 in which it was decided that allegations of no-confidence motion have been carried out as baseless as no meeting for the purpose was held and that in order to put an end to unwarranted controversy raised by respondent Nos. 4 and 5, fresh elections be held on 2.11.1997. Fresh elections were held on 2.11.1997 under the supervision of one Shamim Ahmad Deblasi who was appointed as Election Officer. Ghulam RabbanI and Abdul Khaliq were again elected as President and Manager. Due Intimation of the above fact was given to the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and the relevant documents were also submitted to them.
4. On the other hand, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 repeated that an election was held on 25.12.1997 under the supervision of one Klshorl Singh, Manager, Chatrapatl Shivaji Inter College, Khajraula and that respondent No. 4 Shaukat All and respondent No. 5 Mohd. Ibrahim were elected respectively as Manager and President of the Committee of Management. The respondent No. 1 Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi took into consideration the respective documents brought before him, by the two rival parties and recognised respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as having been duly elected in the election, which was held on 25.12.1997. It is this order, which has been challenged by the petitioners.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that since there was a dispute regarding election of office bearers, the proper course to be adopted by the respondent No. 1 was to have made a reference to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and that respondent No. 1 himself had no Jurisdiction, authority or power to decide the dispute. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 urged that the Assistant Registrar-respondent No. 1 has passed orders not under Section 25 of the Act but under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act. It was also urged that as a matter of fact, there was no dispute or doubt about the election held on 25.12.97 and consequently, a reference under Section 25 was not warranted- A reference was also made to the provisions of Rules 21 and 38 of the U. P. Arbi and Farst Madarsa Rules as notified by State Government on 22.8.1987.
6. There is no doubt about the fact that the provisions of Sections 4 and 25 of the Act deal with separate and distinct situations. Under Section 4, annual list of managing body is to be filed before the Registrar for record. The list of the managing body is to be counter-signed by the old members and 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 is required to decide all objections received within the said period. It is a sort of administrative enquiry. On the other hand, the Prescribed Authority on a reference made to it. by the Registrar or by at least 1/4th of the members of a society, hears and decides in a summary manner, any doubt or dispute in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office bearer of such society and may pass such orders in respect thereof, as it deems fit. The Prescribed Authority has the power to set aside the election of an office bearer if he is satisfied that any corrupt practice has been committed by such office bearer, that the nomination of any candidate has been Improperly rejected or that the result of the election, Insofar as it concerns such office bearer, has been materially affected by the Improper acceptance of any nomination or by improper rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote, which is void or by any non-compliance with the provisions of the rules of the society. A bare reading of Section 25 would make it clear that the Prescribed Authority can go into the validity or otherwise of the elections, as set up by the rival office bearers on the grounds specified above. The Registrar has no power to act under Section 25 of the Act except that he can simply make a reference to the Prescribed Authority. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the controversy involved in the present case is as to which of the two elections--one held on 2.11.1997 and the other held on 25.12.1997, is valid and since a doubt or dispute has arisen in respect of two rival bodies of office bearers, the proper course to be adopted by the respondent No. 1 was to have made a reference to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Act. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on Muslim Welfare Society, Macchlishahr and another v. Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits. Varanasi and another, AIR 1992 All 43, in which it was held that the provisions of Section 25 (1) which are exclusively and specially provided for the purpose, cannot be nullified by the provisions of proviso to Section 4(1) of the Act, the scope of which is very limited in deciding the objections or the disputes in which old office bearers do not countersign the list. There can be no quarrel about the proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid case.
7. I have given thoughtful consideration to the matter and am of the view that exercise of power under Section 4(1) proviso is essentially an administrative in character. The finding recorded by the Assistant Registrar under the said provision does not decide the dispute as to the entitlement of the members of the Committee of Management. As Assistant Registrar, under the aforesaid provision. Is not entrusted with the duty to act Judicially though he must act fairly. While making an order under Section 4(1) proviso, the Assistant Registrar has no trappings of the court. The administrative decision taken by the Assistant Registrar is subject to the decision by the competent court. In this connection, a reference may be made to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Committee of Management, Kishan Shiksha Sadan Vankashi, District Bosti and another v. Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits. Gorakhpur and another. (1995) 2 UPLBEC 1242, in which it has been laid down :
"Section 4 of the Act provides that a list of members of the managing body of a Society shall be filed with the Registrar. That list is maintained by the Registrar for the purpose of performing his administrative functions as a Registrar. Section 25 of the Act provides that whenever any doubt or dispute is raised regarding the election of members of a managing body of a Society, the Registrar may refer such doubt or dispute to the Prescribed Authority for his decision. But when one-fourth members of the Society raise a doubt or dispute relating to the election of the members of managing body of Society, the matter automatically goes to the Prescribed Authority for decision and in such a case the Registrar does not conie into the picture. In exercising this power whether to refer or not any doubt or dispute relating to election of member of the managing body of a Society to the Prescribed Authority, the Registrar has to apply his mind to the facts of the case and take a decision. In taking such a decision the Registrar will be quite justified to take into account all the relevant circumstances, as he has done in the present case. If an objection is raised about the membership of a person, in our view it is the duty of the Registrar, for his own administrative purpose to enquire into whether the person concerned is a member of the Society or not. If the Registrar, comes to the conclusion that such a person is not a member of the Society then he is under obligation to refer the dispute of doubt relating to his election to the Prescribed Authority for decision."
The above decision has been followed in Educational Sahyogi Association and another v. Dy. Registrar, Funds, Societies and Chits, Faizabad and others. (1996) 3 UPLBEC 1992 and Committee of Management. Naideo Kuldeopurwa Madhyamik Vtdyalaya Belaon, Jaunpur and another v. Assistant Registrar of Firms. Societies and Chits. Azamgarh and another. 1997 (2) LBESR 496 (All). In the latter case of Naldeo Kuldeopurwa. the question for determination was whether the Assistant Registrar was competent to decide the question himself without making the reference under Section 25 (1) of the Act to the Prescribed Authority. It was held that the decision of the Assistant Registrar is definitely not final and is subject to challenge in a civil suit before the civil court if the parties or any of them are aggrieved otherwise. In exercising his power whether to refer or not any dispute or doubt relating to the election of members of managing body of a society to the Prescribed Authority, the Registrar has to apply his mind to the facts of the case and take a decision. In taking such a decision, the Registrar will be quite Justified to take into account all the relevant circumstances. If an objection is raised about the membership of a person, it is the duly of the Registrar, for his own administrative purpose, to enquiry into whether the person concerned is a member of the society or not.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the respondent No. 1. had not applied his mind to the glaring fact that as many as three life members, S/Sri Wakil Ahmad, Abdul Gaffar, Mohd. Shaban, besides 5 other employees of the institution, have filed their affidavits to indicate that no elections were held on 25.12.1997 and that Kishori Singh under whose supervision the aforesaid election is alleged to have been held by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, has also filed an affidavit militating against the stand taken by them. As a matter of fact, the Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is very limited. The various controversial issues requiring scrutiny of the facts, cannot be gone into or sifted. The fact remains that the petitioners were admittedly the validly elected members and office bearers of the Committee of Management, which had been duly recognised. On account of certain grave illegalities, which come within the province of Rule 21 of the Rules notified on 22.8.87, the petitioners earned disqualification and consequently, no-confidence motion was passed and Shaukat Ali was substituted as Manager of the Committee. Since Ghulam Rabbanl and Abdul Khaliq were no longer the office bearers of the Committee, they could not have held the elections on 2.11.1997 ; after going through the relevant documents and affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties, the Assistant Registrar-respondent No. 1 has come to the conclusion that the election of 25.12.1997 was validly held and in that election respondent Nos, 4 and 5 were elected as Manager and President respectively. In view of this finding, the Assistant Registrar has recognised respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to discharge the functions of the Committee of Management of the Society. This administrative decision of the Assistant Registrar and the continuance of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in office is subject to the decision of the competent court. In the given circumstance. It was absolutely not necessary for the Assistant Registrar to make a reference under Section 25 of the Act to the Prescribed Authority. In case the pelitioners really want the dispute to be referred to the Prescribed Authority, there is nothing to prevent them to approach the Prescribed Authority provided at least one-fourth of the members of the Society require the Prescribed Authority to decide about any dispute or doubt in respect of the election or continuance in office of office bearers of such society. This ts an alternative method to approach the Prescribed Authority, should the Assistant Registrar fall to make a reference of his own.
9. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed in limine.