COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, KISAN SHIKSHA SADAN, BANKSAHI, DISTRICT BASTI AND ANOTHER Vs. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, FIRMS, SOCIETIES AND CHITS, GORAKHPUR REGION, GORAKHPUR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the order, dated 14-2-1994 dismissing the writ petition No. NIL of 1994. The plea of the second appellant is that he was elected as the Manager of Kisan Shiksha Sadan, Bankasahi, District Basti (hereinafter referred to as the Shiksha Sadan) in Jan., 1992. This plea was denied by the second respondent herein stating that he was lawfully elected as the Manager of the Shiksha Sadan, and the second appellant was not even a member of the Shiksha Sadan. As the application filed by the second appellant herein was not considered by the Registrar of the Societies, he filed a writ petition No. NIL of 1994 seeking a direction to the Registrar to decide his application. This writ petition was disposed of on 10th Jan., 1994 directing the Registrar to consider the plea of the second appellant herein and pass appropriate orders by giving reasons after considering the objections raised by the second appellant. Accordingly, the Registrar considered the plea of the second appellant in the light of the objections raised by him and passed the appropriate order, dated 1-2-1994 holding that the second appellant herein was not even a member of the Shiksha Sadan, Therefore, he refused to refer the dispute or doubt relating to the election of the Manager of the Shiksha Sadan. Aggrieved by that order, he filed writ petition No. NIL of 1994, the learned single judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the Registrar was competent to pass such an order. Aggrieved by that order, this appeal is preferred.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the Registrar has no power or.jurisdiction to decide the question relating to the membership of the second appellant. When he raised a dispute about the election of the Manager of the Shiksha Sadan, he had no other alternative but to refer the doubt or dispute relating to the election of the Manager of the Shiksha Sadan to the Prescribed Authority under Sec. 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (in short the Act'). On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents that the Registrar may or not refer a dispute or doubt relating to the election of the Manager of a Society to the Prescribed Authority for valid reasons and the Registrar is under no obligation to refer any dispute or doubt relating to the election, without applying his mind, to the Prescribed Authority. It is further submitted that the Registrar is under an administrative obligation under Section 4 of the Act to maintain a register of members of the managing body for his own administrative purpose. He is under an obligation to record the names of the elected members of the managing body and for that purpose he can held an enquiry so as to find out who are the elected members of the managing body of a Society. On the basis of such enquiry, if the Registrar comes to the conclusion that a person or persons are not even the members of the Society, he will be quite justified in not referring the doubt or dispute as to the election of members of the managing body of a Society.

(3.) Having regard to the provisions of the Act, we see force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondents. Sec. 4 of the Act provides that a list of members of the managing body of a Society shall be filed with the Registrar. That list is maintained by the Registrar for the purpose of performing his administrative functions as a Registrar. Sec. 25 of the Act provides that whenever any doubt or dispute is raised regarding the election of members of a managing body of a Society, the Registrar may refer such doubt or dispute to the Prescribed Authority for his decision. But when one fourth members of the Society raise a doubt or dispute relating to the election of the members of managing body or Society, the matter automatically goes to the Prescribed Authority for decision and in such a case the Registrar does not come into the picture. In exercising this power whether to refer, or not any doubt or dispute relating to the election of members of the managing body of a Society to the Prescribed Authority, the Registrar has to apply his mind to the facts of the case and take a decision. In taking such a decision, the Registrar will be quite justified to take into 'account all the relevant circumstances, as he has done in the present case. If an objection is raised about the membership of a person. In our view, it is the duty of the Registrar, for his own administrative purpose, to inquire into whether the person concerned is a member of the Society or not. If the Registrar comes to the conclusion that such a person is not a member of the Society then he is under no obligation to refer the dispute or doubt relating to his election to the Prescribed Authority for decision. In the present case, the Registrar has applied his mind to the facts of the case to find out whether the second appellant herein or was not a member of the Shiksha Sadan. He found that he was not even a member of a Society. It is a pure question of facts. If any person feels aggrieved by such a decision, the proper course open to him is to approach the Civil Court and seek appropriate relief. The Registrar is bound by the decision of the Civil Court and his decision will be subject to the decree passed by the Civil Court.