JUDGMENT Arun Tandon, J.
1. Heard Sri R. K. Pandey advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Atul Kumar advocate counsel for the caveator-respondent No. 4 and learned standing counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
2. Madarsa Qamrul Uloom Islamia Samiti Kakrala, Budaun, is a society duly registered under the Societies Registration Act with Registration No. 456/1991-92. The said society has established a Madarsa in the name and style of Madarsa Qamrul Uloom Islamia Samiti Kakrala, Budaun. According to petitioner, the said Madarsa is recognized under the provisions of U. P. Ashashkiya Arbi Tatha Farsi Madarson Ki Manyata Niyamawali, 1987. The institution as well as the society is managed by the duly elected office bearers in accordance with the registered byelaws of the society. The term of the elected office bearers is 5 years.
3. According to the petitioner, fresh elections of the Committee of Management took place on 10th September, 2001. In the said elections it is claimed that Sri Rafi Ahmad Khan has been elected as the Manager. During the subsistence of the term of the said alleged committee, Sri Zeeshan Khan son of Sri Danish Ali Khan, claiming himself to be the President, is said to have convened a meeting on 10.5.2002, in which elections have taken place and the list of office bearers was registered by the Assistant Registrar on 19th June, 2004, on the basis of the documents submitted by Sri Zeeshan Khan-respondent No. 4 on 27th May, 2004, without notice and opportunity to the petitioner and without following the procedure prescribed under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act.
4. The petitioner, on coming to know of aforesaid registration of the list of office bearers, filed his objection on 31st July, 2004, along with affidavit of certain persons. Since the objection so filed was not being decided and the respondent No. 4 was illegally interfering in the affairs of the Madarsa, the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25105 of 2004 before this Hon'ble Court with the prayer that the list of office bearers, registered on 19th June, 2004, be quashed, in alternative a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to decide the objection filed by the petitioner dated 31st July, 2004, followed by representation dated 9.8.2004. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of with the direction that the representation made by the petitioner dated 9.8.2004 for recall of the order dated 6th July, 2004, may be decided strictly in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned in a time bound manner.
5. The Assistant Registrar, in compliance of the order of this Court, has passed the order dated 25th August, 2004, whereby he has referred the dispute of the two rival elections, one set up by the petitioner and another pleaded by the respondent No. 4, for adjudication to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act. The order of the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits dated 25th August, 2004, making the aforesaid reference under Section 25 (1), has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition with the allegations that the Assistant Registrar was duty bound to consider the objections filed by the petitioner to the effect that while registering the list of office bearers on 19th June, 2004, he had not followed the procedure prescribed under Section 4 (proviso) as also on the ground that respondent No. 4 was not even primary member of the society and, therefore, any election set up by him is a farce. In such circumstances, the Assistant Registrar should have decided the dispute himself instead of referring the matter for adjudication under Section 25 (1).
6. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the writ petition.
7. From the order, which is impugned in the present writ petition, as well as from the allegations made in the present writ petition, it is apparently clear that between 2001 to 2004 no list of office bearers was got registered by the petitioner and the petitioner only claims to have intimated the facts about the elections said to have taken place on 10th November, 2001, vide an application, said to have been received by the Assistant Registrar on 5..10.2001. The petitioner has further stated in paragraph 11 that the renewal was granted and certificate of renewal issued for subsequent period of 5 years from 11.9.2001 to 10.9.2006, a copy in respect thereof has been enclosed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The said document does not in any way establish that list of office bearers for the year, 2001-2002 was registered by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits on the basis of any fresh elections as pleaded by the petitioner on. 10th September, 2001. The petitioner has not enclosed any document on the basis whereof he can claim that any list of office bearers was registered by the Assistant Registrar on the basis of his alleged elections dated 10th September, 2001, for the subsequent period in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 (Proviso) of the Societies Registration Act.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, since there was no earlier list of office bearers registered in the office of the Assistant Registrar under Section 4 for the period 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004. the Assistant Registrar proceeded to act upon the list submitted by the respondent No. 4 and consequently registered the list of office bearers for the year, 2004-2005 vide order dated 19th June, 2004. The Assistant Registrar, after considering the documents submitted by the parties whereby rival claims have been pleaded for being lawful office bearers of the society, has rightly referred the dispute for adjudication under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act. Reference may be had to the judgment of this Court in 2004 (3)' UPLBEC 2603, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has specifically held that if a list of elected office bearers is submitted to the Registrar under Section 4 for registration and further if a dispute in respect of the elections of the earlier office bearers is brought to the notice of the Registrar by any of the parties, the Registrar is required to refer the dispute to Prescribed Authority under Section 25.
9. In view of the aforesaid judgment of this Court, no illegality or infirmity can be said to have been committed by the Assistant Registrar by referring the dispute under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act. Reference In that regard may also be had to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in AIR 1988 All 236.
10. Since in the facts of the present case, the Assistant Registrar has registered the list of office bearers on 19th June, 2004 on which date there was no other list of office bearers registered in the office of the Assistant Registrar nor any application of the petitioner for registration of his list for the year, 2004-2005 was pending, this Court feels that the Assistant Registrar has rightly refused to decide the application of petitioner on merits against the aforesaid order of the Assistant Registrar, registering the list of office bearers, dated 19th June, 2004 and has rightly referred the dispute of rival claim of the parties on the basis of the elections to the prescribed authority under Section 25.
11. In such circumstances, the order passed by the Assistant Registrar does not call for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
12. It is further provided that the prescribed authority, shall consider and decide the dispute, as referred under order of the Assistant Registrar, strictly in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, by means of reasoned speaking order, preferably within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him.