SHIV MURTI VERMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Saroj Yadav, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3.

(2.) The Assistant Registrar has proceeded to pass an order with regard to the registration of list of office bearers under the provisions of Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that basically the entire dispute was with regard to the election and continuance of office bearers, therefore, he ought to have referred the same to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Act. The contention, therefore, is that the Registrar has proceeded to decide the dispute for which he had no jurisdiction.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 4 submits that on the findings that have been arrived at, the dispute arose with regard to the election of 2003. Apart from that periodical elections were held in 2006 and have now been held in 2009.