1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 24th July, 1990 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Varanasi under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, herein after referred to as the Act. The controversy involved in the present case is as to whether the dispute is such which is to be adjudicated by the authority provided under Section 4 or by the Prescribed Authority under S. 25 of the Act.
2. It is not disputed that the last elections were held on 27th Nov. 1986 and a duly constituted executive body of the Society came into existence, of which Sri Shamsuddin was elected as Secretary and Mohammad Hasan as President. The term of the executive body in accordance with Rule 8(h) of the bye laws of the society is three years and in special case it was liable to be extended for a period not exceeding one year, at a special meeting. It appears, that a set of members of the society conducted fresh election to elect the executive body and claimed to have elected Mohammad Hasan as Secretary and Mohammad Israil as the President on 7th January, 1990. A list of the members of the executive body was submitted to the Assistant Registrar, firms societies and chits, as required under the provisions of Section 4 of the Act.
3. On the other hand the respondent No. 2 submitted a list of executive body of the society on the basis of meeting held on 3rd Sept. 1989 of the Board of trustees, in which tenure of the governing council was extended for one year. The list of the members of the executive body contained the same names of office bearers which were earlier functioning and of which the respondent No. 2 was the Secretary. The papers of the meeting and the list of the members of the executive body was also submitted to the Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, under Section 4 of the Act.
4. Thus before the Assistant Registrar there was claim laid down by the two elected executive body in respect of one society. The Assistant Registrar in exercise of the powers under Section 4 of the Act gave opportunity to both the rival claimants and after necessary material was brought on record the Assistant Registrar held that the existing executive body in accordance with Rule 8(h) of the bye laws has validly extended the term of the executive body and they are liable to be given recognition and the proceedings conducted in the meeting held on 3rd Sept. 1989 are in accordance with the law. In respect of the elections of the rival body held on 9th January, 1990 it was held that the meeting of the general body was required to be called by the Secretary who admittedly, did not issue any notice for the meeting which is alleged to have been held on 7th January, 1990 and as such the meeting can not be treated to be in accordance with law. The proceedings of the meeting held on 7th January, 1990 indicate that two meetings were held and in one meeting some old office bearers were removed and thereafter in the other meeting the election of the governing council took place which is not in accordance with law.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the aforesaid order mainly on the ground that the present controversy is not covered by the provisions of Section 4 of the Act and it is mainly a dispute in respect of the election covered by the provisions of S. 25 of the Act which is to be adjudicated by the Prescribed Authority. In this case the dispute has not arisen in the context of the submission of the annual list of the managing body, which is required to be filed under Section 4(i) of the Act but the continuance of the office bearers of the society on the basis of the meeting held on 3rd August, 1989, according to the requirement of Rule 8(h) of the bye-laws and the rival elected body which they claimed to have been elected on the basis of elections held on 7th January, 1990. The petitioner has disputed not only the list of members of the executive body submitted by respondent No. 2 but has made his rival claim on the basis of newly elected executive body and on the basis of fresh elections and thus it is mainly a dispute relating to the election of office bearers of the society and the same has to be decided only in the manner prescribed under Section 25(i) of the Act.
6. In support of the aforesaid contention learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on All India Council v. Assistant Regristrar, Firms Societies and Chits reported in AIR 1988 Allahabad 236. In my opinion the dispute which required adjudication was as to whether the meeting held on 3rd August, 1989 extending the term of existing executive body for one year as contemplated under Rule 8(h) of the bye-laws of the Society is valid or the meeting held on 7th January, 1990 holding fresh elections of the executive body is valid.
7. The provisions of S. 25 of the Act as is amended by the State Legislature provides comprehensive code and creates designated forum or the Tribunal for adjudication in a summary manner of all disputes or doubt in respect to the election or continuance in office of the office bearers of the society. It also provides grounds on which election of office bearers can be set aside.
8. According to the claim laid by the respondents it had to be decided whether the existing office bearers of the society should be allowed to continue in office, a dispute which clearly fell within the ambit of S. 25 of the Act. Even if for argument sake it is accepted that the only thing which was required to be seen as to whether the meeting held on 3rd August 1989 was valid or not and as to whether the existing office bearers of the society are liable to continue in office or not would again be a dispute covered under S. 25 of the Act. In any view of the matter this cannot be considered by the Assistant Registrar in exercise of powers under S. 4 of the Act. It cannot be said that in this case only Registrar was required to decide the objections filed under the proviso to Section 4(1) of the Act against annual list of managing body which was submitted by respondent No. 2. The parties have brought the dispute claiming existence of two rival executive bodies of the society and in this view of the matter, in my opinion, proviso to S. 4 of the Act does not provide any procedure for deciding such dispute by the authorities contemplated under S. 4(1) of the Act, where as S. 25(1) of the Act specifically deals with such contingencies providing for effective adjudication by the prescribed authority. The provisions of S. 25(1) which are exclusively and specially provided for this purpose cannot be nullified by the provisions of S. 4(1) Proviso of the Act, the scope of which is very limited in deciding the objections of the dispute in which old office bearers do not counter sign the list.
9. Thus in the present case the Assistant Registrar had no jurisdiction to decide the present dispute in exercise of powers under Section 4(1), Proviso of the Act. The petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 23rd July 1990 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits is quashed.
10. It will however be open to him to refer the dispute for adjudication by the prescribed authority under S. 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act.
11. Petition allowed.