VINDHYA VASINI Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the orders impugned dated 22.5.2000 (Annexure-14) and 23.3.2002 (Annexure-15) to the writ petition.

(2.) It is settled principle of law that a writ of certiorari is maintainable against final order after exhausting all the statutory remedy. Here, in the instant case, l/4th members of the society has initiated proceeding under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, before the Prescribed Authority. Preliminary objection was raised regarding jurisdiction before the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority by Impugned orders rejected the preliminary objection. The orders impugned passed by the Prescribed Authority are eminently Just and proper and do not require interference at this stage.

(3.) It is held that the validity of the election depends upon the actual number of members of the general body of the society registered in Uttar Pradesh entitled (o participate in such election under bye-laws of the society. In those cases, where there is a doubt about election between two rival parties, then a reference is to be made to the Prescribed Authority by the Assistant Registrar. Firm, Societies, Chit Fund. In case no reference is made, then l/4th members of society are entitled to initiate proceeding under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act and in both situations, the Prescribed Authority is to adjudicate the validity of election alleged to have been held by rival parties with reference to the actual number of members of the general body entitled to participate in such election. The decision relating to number of members of general body entitled to participate in election is incidental for deciding the doubt about validity of election under Subsection (1) of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act and an argument contrary to it is not acceptable.