Petitioner challenges Ext.P21 to the extent of contending that after relegating the parties to a Civil Court, District Registrar has restrained the petitioner from filing statement under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
2. Apparently, the dispute had arisen between the petitioner and the party respondents with reference to the registration of a society. The party respondents have raised a contention that the signature of three persons were forged while submitting the application for registration, as a result of which the registration itself is bad. After referring to the evidence adduced by the parties, the District Registrar had formed an opinion that he cannot adjudicate on such issues as evidence is required and only a Civil court can consider the same. As far as forgery is concerned, the District Registrar was of the opinion that only criminal proceedings are to be taken. However, it is mentioned that the number of members is reduced from 7 to 5. Under such circumstances, while relegating the parties to a Civil court to adjudicate the disputes, the Registrar opined that the petitioner shall not be entitled to file necessary statement under Section 4 of the Act. Section 4 of the Act reads as under:
“4. Annual list of managing body to be filed.- Once in every year, on or before the fourteenth day succeeding the day on which, according to the rules of the society, the annual general meeting of the society is held, or, if the rules do not provide for an annual general meeting, in the month of January, a list shall be filed with the Inspector-General of the names, addresses and occupations of the governors, council, directors, committee, or other governing body then entrusted with the management of the affairs of the society.”
3. In fact, existence of the number of minimum members will again depends upon the decision to be taken by a Civil court. Having regard to the fact that the District Registrar had formed an opinion that he cannot cancel the registration of the petitioner’s society, there is no reason for the District Registrar to have further stated that a statement under Section 4 cannot be filed. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the dispute which has been raised by party respondents are to be adjudicated only by a Civil court and reserving their right to do so, there will be a direction to maintain status quo which has been continuing during the pendency of this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the party respondents points out that, as matters stand now, the issue has to be decided by the Wakf Board or the Wakf Tribunal. It shall always be open for the respondents to choose the necessary forum.
With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed.
(sd/-)
(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)
jsr