JUDGMENT D.P. Singh, J.
1. Pleadings have been exchanged and the counsel for the parties agree that the petition may be finally disposed off under the Rules of the Court.
2. Heard Sri N.K. Pandey, for the petitioner and Sri K.N. Mishra for the respondent.
3. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 26.5,1997 by which the Assistant Registrar has referred the matter to the Prescribed Authority for decision under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, (here-in-after referred to as Act) and also a consequential order dated 6.8.1997 of the Prescribed Authority fixing a date for hearing.
4. Uttar Pradeshiya Adhyapak Mandal was a Society of teachers of primary and junior high schools which was earlier registered as Society in 1967 under the Act and it was also recognized by the State of U.P. Subsequently the name was changed to its present title. The Act underwent a drastic change in 1975 whereby societies under the Act were debarred from using the word "Union" in their name and their registration and renewal was subject to sanction of the State Government. In spite of aforesaid amendment, the petitioner approached the Registrar for renewal of registration who vide its letter dated 14.8.1986 passed an order that the "Union" is deemed registered under the Uttar Pradesh (Recognized Service Association) Rules, 1979 and since the petitioner had used the word "Union", it could not be registered or renewed under the Act.
5. The petitioner continued with its operation when the respondent ho. 3 made an application for renewal of the Society showing new set of office bearers before the Assistant Registrar, Azamgarh who granted renewal certificate dated 11.10.1995 for a period of five years. When the petitioner came to know about the aforesaid, he made a detailed representation dated 20.6.1996 bringing to the notice of the Assistant Registrar the fraudulent act of the respondent. Through the representation, it was impressed upon him that no such renewal certificate could be granted in view of the orders dated 14.8.1986 passed by the Registrar, Lucknow, it was further contended that as the Head Office of the petitioner was situated at Lucknow, therefore, otherwise also, he had no territorial jurisdiction. Apart from these objections, it was also asserted that the alleged election set up by the respondent was bogus and no such election was held. Though, the Registrar issued show cause notice to the respondent no. 3 asking him why the renewal be not cancelled as it was obtained by playing fraud, but instead of proceeding further, he passed another order dated 26.5.1997 referring the alleged dispute of election of office bearers to the Prescribed Authority.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has firstly urged that in the teeth of the order dated 14.8.1986 passed by the Registrar, the Assistant Registrar could not refer the alleged election dispute to the Prescribed Authority.
7. The petitioner was earlier known as Uttar Pradesh Adhyapak Mandal and was registered as a Society under the Act and it was also recognized as such by the Education Department of the State. The aforesaid name was changed and the present name was duly recognized by the State vide its order dated 20.10.1970. When after the expiry of the period of registration the petitioner applied for renewal/recognition in its new title, the Registrar refused to either renew or register the petitioner as a Society in view of the amendment in Section 3 of the Act as amended for the State of U.P. and by his order dated 14.8.1986 it informed the President that the petitioner is deemed registered under U.P. (Recognized Service Association) Rules, 1979 vide his order dated 14.8.1986. These facts mentioned in paragraph nos. 1 to 5 have not been specifically denied in the counter affidavit by the contesting respondent.
8. Under the Act the power of registration and renewal is vested in the Registrar seated at. Lucknow, however, his delegated powers are exercised by the respective Assistant Registrars posted in different districts. Once the Registrar has passed the order dated 14,8.1986 which was referable to proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 3-A, the Assistant Registrar was bound by that order where-after neither he could treat the petitioner as a Society or grant any renewal, nor could have referred the alleged election dispute to the Prescribed Authority. No doubt, in view of the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 3, the State Government may allow the use of the word "Union", but that is not the case of either of the parties. Further, though it was not argued on behalf of the respondent, mere usage of the word "Union" may not incur the disability unless the further requirement of clause (b) of Sub Section (2) of Section 3 is present, but this issue cannot be considered in these proceedings as that order is not under challenge. Suffice it to say that once an order of the Registrar dated 14.8.1986 has become final, the Assistant Registrar could not nave passed the impugned order dated 26.5.1997.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has then urged that the registered office of the petitioner is situated at Lucknow and therefore the Assistant Registrar sitting at Azamgarh had no territorial jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. The contention appears to be correct. As already observed above, the Assistant Registrars exercises the powers of the Registrar in their respective territories and the Assistant Registrars under whose territorial jurisdiction the Head Office of the Society exist only he could exercise the powers.
10. For the reasons given above, this petition succeeds and is and the impugned orders dated 26.5.1997 and 6.8.1997 are hereby quashed. No order as to cost.