JUDGMENT Arun Tandon, J.
1. Heard Sri H.K. Singh on behalf of the petitioner, learned standing counsel on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri P.N. Saxena, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Umesh Vats on behalf of respondent No. 3. Nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent No. 4 despite notice having been issued by this Court.
2. Smt. Buchai Devi widow of late Chandra Dev Singh, claiming herself to be the Manager of the Committee of Management Mahanth Vishwanath Yati Madhyamik Vidyalaya Chogra, Ballia, has filed this petition against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 17th March, 2004, whereby the Prescribed Authority has held that the petitioner is not even a member of the general body which constitutes the electoral college for electing the office bearers of the society and further it has been held that the elections set up by the. respondent No. 3, which are unopposed and supported by other members of the general body, are legal and valid.
3. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority to the effect that the Treasurer alone is competent to accept membership fee is illegal and runs contrary to the registered bye-laws of the society, which empowers the Manager also to accept the membership fee. It is further stated that if the fee deposited by the petitioner and other four persons have not been transmitted by the Manager to the bank account or to the account maintained in the post office, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed any fault nor it can be a basis for holding that the petitioner is not valid member of the general body. It is further contended that the Prescribed Authority has not considered the issue as to whether elections set up by the respondent No. 3 were held in accordance with the registered bye-laws/approved scheme of administration or not. Consequently, the order passed by the Prescribed Authority cannot be sustained.
4. On behalf of the respondent it is contended that since the petitioner has been held not to be valid member of the general body by the Prescribed Authority, the only remedy available to petitioner, in such circumstances, is by way of civil suit and this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere with the order passed by the Prescribed Authority. In that regard reliance has been placed upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in 1995 (2) UPLBEC 1242.
5. So far as the issue with regard to maintainability of the present writ petition is concerned, it is true that the Division Bench of this Court has held that if an order has been passed by the Prescribed Authority after recording reasons and applying his mind to the fact and all relevant material on record with regard to present member of the general body, the aggrieved person can only seek remedy before the civil court of law. However, the said judgment does not lay down as proposition of law that even in the cases where the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority are perverse and based on misreading of the provisions of the registered bye-laws, no writ petition can be maintained.
6. In the opinion of the Court, Prescribed Authority is statutory authority and is under legal obligation to decide all issues after taking into account whether the dispute between the parties is genuine or not. If any order is passed by the Prescribed Authority, which is perverse and based on misreading of the provisions of registered bye-laws, this Court can always interfere with such a finding. Accordingly, it is held that in case the order passed by the Prescribed Authority is perverse, the present writ petition as filed by the petitioner cannot be said to be not maintainable.
7. For the purposes of deciding the issue as to whether Prescribed Authority has taken into consideration all the materials on record, provisions of the registered by-laws for recording the finding that petitioner is a valid member of the general body or not, it would be necessary to refer to the powers of the Manager which has been conferred upon him by the registered by-laws, enclosed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, wherein clause 16 provides as follows :
^^16- inkf/kdkfj;ksa ds dk;Z ,oa vf/kdkj % ¼d½ izcU/kd ,d lkS :i;s rd ds O;; dh LohÑfr dj ldsxk A ¼[k½ izcU/kd prqFkZ oxZ ds deZpkfj;ksa dh vLFkk;h fu;qfä dj ldsxk A ¼x½ iz/kkukpk;Z ds vkdfLed vodk'k dh LohÑfr djsxk A ¼?k½ vko';d i=kpkj dk lapkyu djsxk A ¼M+½ leLr vk;&O;; ds i= dh iaftdk j[ksxk A ¼p½ izcU/k lfefr dh vksj ls leLr vk;&O;;
ds fofu;ksx ij gLrk{kj djsxk A ¼N½ laLFkk ds fy;s nku] vuqnku voa 'kqYd vkfn dks izkIr djsxk vkSj mudk fu;fer ys[kk j[ksxk A ¼t½ okf"kZd ctV rS;kj djsxk vkSj izcU/k lfefr }kjk mls ikfjr djk;sxk A ¼>½ fuEufyf[r iaftdkvksa dk vuqj{k.k djsxk A**
8. From the aforesaid provisions, it is apparently clear that the power to accept membership fee has been conferred upon the Manager as well as Treasurer of the society. Since according to petitioner, the membership fee deposited by her was accepted by the Manager of the institution and in that regard a photostat copy of the receipt was also produced before the Prescribed Authority, the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority to the effect that the Treasurer alone was competent to accept the membership fee, is legally not sustainable and is based on misreading of the aforesaid clause 16 of the aforesaid registered bye-laws as it confers the power upon the Manager to accept membership fee.
9. Similarly, the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority to the effect that the Treasurer has neither accepted membership fee of the petitioner and five other persons nor has transmitted the same to any bank account or post office account of the society, is wholly misconceived and totally i