(1.) D. K. Seth, J. The order dated 2nd December 1996 (Annexure '9' to the writ petition) has since been challenged by means of the present writ petition. Mr. Ashok Bushan assails the said order in the background that the Society was registered on 23rd September, 1958 and the petitioner No. 2 Sri Rama Shanker Singh was elected as Manager of the Society. The Society was renewed on 1st January 1980 by the Assis tant Registrar. One Sri Balram Pathak raised an objection on 15th May, 1981 against the order of renewal of the Society dated 1st January, 1980. There upon the Assistant Registrar had referred the matter to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. According to him, the said dispute was decided as infructuous by an order dated 6th January 1996. Whereas in the meantime the election of office bearers had taken place for the last time on 25th June 1994. Sub sequently by an order dated 2nd December 1996, the Assistant Registrar had held that Sri Dharnidhar Singh, herein respondent No. 2, was the Manager of the Society by reason of his being elected validly.
(2.) MR. Ashok Bhushan assailed the said order dated 2nd December 1996 on the ground, first, that since there was a rival claim, the Assistant Registrar did not have any jurisdiction to decide the dispute and he ought to have referred the matter under Section 25 (1) of the Act to the Prescribed Authority. Secondly he contends that while deciding the dispute and passing the order dated 2nd December, 1996, though had referred the election held by Dharnidhar Singh but had not adverted to the election held by the petitioner Rama Shanker Singh though the records of the dispute were al ready placed before the Assistant Registrar. He next contended that though all the relevant records relating to the holding of the election including the minute books were produced before the Assistant Registrar, the same were not taken into con sideration and, therefore, the order passed by him suffers from bias.
(3.) THOUGH Mr. Ashok Bhushan and Mr. A. P. Sahi had raised contentions argu ments extensively in support of their respec tive points as urged, it is not necessary to go into all those questions for the purpose of deciding the issue involved. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the issue germane to the question is as to whether the Assis tant Registrar was competent to decide the question himself without making a reference under Section 25 (1) of the said Act to the Prescribed Authority.