JUDGMENT Aloke Chakrabarti, J.
1. On 18-8-1991 election of management of Shiksha Pracharini Sabha, Shikarpur, District Bulandshahr (hereinafter referred to as 'Society') was held in which late Shambhoo Nath Garg was elected as Manager alongwith other office bearers and members of the body and papers relating to such election were sent to Deputy Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits alongwith covering letter dated 30-8-1991, The said Shambhoo Nath Garg expired on 15-2-1994 and General Body of the society on 28-2-1994 elected the petitioner No. 2 as Manager of the Society. It has been stated by the petitioner that next election was held on 18-4-1994 when petitioner No. 2 was elected as Manager. On 26-8-1995 the petitioner No. 2 applied for renewal of registration of the society before the respondent No. 2. The petitioners have stated that on the basis of certain forged and fictitious papers submitted by the respondent No, 4 on behalf of respondent No. 3, on 22-11-1996 the respondent No. 2 issued a letter informing acceptance of - the list of office bearers sent. The petitioners raised objection to the same disputing the said election itself. The respondent No. 2 by order dated 19-12-1996 suspended the order dated 22-11-1996 and thereafter referred the matter for adjudication before the respondent No. 1 which ultimately decided the dispute by order dated 1-9-1997 (Annexure No. 21 to the writ petition) and the- same has been challenged in this writ petition.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterated objection against the said impugned order as stated in the writ petition. Learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the impugned order does not require an interference as the proceeding is a summary one and such decision is subject to decision in civil suit and finding has not been arrived at even in a quasi judicial function. Law has been referred to in support of the contentions of the parties;
3. A perusal of the impugned order at Annexure No. 21 of the writ petition shows that the said order has been passed after recording the respective contentions of the parties. But, it is appearing from the said judgment that no specific finding has been arrived at by the said authority apart from recording the contentions of respective parties and ultimately rejecting the contentions of present petitioners, in the said circumstances it is apparent that the said order has been passed without indicating any reason and even without rejecting contention of the petitioners as regards election dated 18-4-.1994, only doubt has been expressed. Learned Counsel for the respondents could not show any specific finding of the said authority which justified the ultimate conclusion in rejecting the contention of the present petitioners. In the absence of finding of facts it is also not possible for this Court to give its opinion as to validity or impropriety of the impugned order. Even keeping in mind the contentions of the respondents that the proceeding is a summary one. I am of the opinion that while deciding such question the authorities are to come to specific finding with regard to dispute involved and mere recording of contentions of respective parties and ultimate conclusion does not satisfy the requirement of law. Questions of law raised herein also can not be decided in the absence of findings on relevant facts.
4. Therefor, in view of aforesaid findings, the impugned order dated 1-9-1997 (Annexure No. 21 to the writ petition) is quashed. The concerned authority is directed to decide the matter afresh by reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. This writ petition is thus allowed.