LAWS(ALL)-1992-9-53

KHAPRAHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY Vs. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

Decided On September 21, 1992
KHAPRAHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, KHAPRAHA JAUNPUR Appellant
V/S
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, FIRMS, CHITS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A.K.Banerji

(2.) BY means of this writ petition the petitioners, Khapraha Educational Society, Jaunpur, has challenged the impugned order dated 6th August, 1992 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Chits and Societies, Varanasi Region, Varanasi (respondent no. 1) by which in purported exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act (as amended) the said respondent had accepted the list of office bearers submitted by the respondent no. 2 and rejected the list submitted by the petitioner no. 1 through the petitioner no 2. The respondent no. 2 had filed a caveat in this Court end had also filed a counter affidavit to which rejoinder was filed by the petitioners The matter had come up before a Single Judge of this Court for admission The said learned Single Judge, however, felt that in view of the fact that an earlier writ petition pertaining to the same society had keen dismissed by me on 28th April, 1992 as not maintainable, there might be repercussion of the said decision on the present petition and, therefore, the matter may be beared by me. It is thus that this matter has come up before me. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length at the admission stage itself and with the consent of learned counsel the writ petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has challenged the aforesaid order dated 6-8-1992 mainly on two grounds. Firstly, it has been contended that the impugned order is totally without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Assistant Registrar has no authority under the law to decide a dispute with regards to continuance of an officebearer of the society and it was mandatory to have referred the dispute to the Prescribed Authority under section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. Secondly, it has been contended that even on merits the Assistant Registrar has recorded totally incorrect and illegal findings which are against the bye laws of the society and impugned order cannot be legally sustained.