Christ Church College Society vs State Of U.P. And Others
2012 Latest Caselaw 3455 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Reserved Judgment
 

 
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.23731 of 2011
 
Christ Church College Society, Kanpur Vs. State of U.P. 
 
and others 
 

 
AND
 

 
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.66313 of 2011
 
Christ Church College Society and another Vs. State of U.P. 
 
and others
 

 
AND
 

 
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.44765 of 2011
 
Committee of Management and another Vs. State of U.P. 
 
and others
 

 
**** 

Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J

The petitioners in all these three petitions have assailed a common order namely the order dated 8.4.2011 passed by Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Kanpur. This order relates to a decision by the Deputy Registrar on the management and affairs of the Christ Church College Society which was registered initially in the year 1956. The said Society also runs a College namely Christ Church College, The Mall, Kanpur, the Principal whereof namely Dr. Parvez E. Dean claiming himself to be the Secretary of the Society has filed the leading Writ Petitioner No.23731 of 2011 claiming separate rights.

The other set of claimants through Rt. Rev. Morris, Edgar Dan Bishop Diocese of Lucknow have filed Writ Petition No.66313 of 2011 where also the prayer is to quash the same order dated 8.4.2011. The third petition has been filed by another set of office-bearers through Conel Swing claiming himself to be the Secretary of the Society where also the prayer is to quash the same impugned order.

All the three sets of claimants have, therefore, made the same prayer but have claimed their own rights of Management over the Society through Committees which are separate and distinct from each other.

The contesting respondents are common in all the three writ petitions namely Liaquat M. Khan and Sri S.P. Prakash in whose favour the impugned order has been passed treating them to be the valid office-bearers of the Society entitled to manage the affairs of the same. The respondents being common, they have been represented through Sri Keshari Nath Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Suresh Chandra Dwivedi and they have opposed the writ petitions contending that none of the three petitioners are entitled to stake any claim. The crux of the argument of Sri Tripathi is that in the event the petitioners seek any such declaration against the order of the Assistant Registrar, then in the background of the case and the circumstances as narrated by him, the only remedy is to file a Civil Suit. Learned Standing Counsel in all the three writ petitions has supported the impugned order contending that the Assistant Registrar, while filing the list of office-bearers, has rightly arrived at the conclusion to recognize the contesting respondent in all the three writ petitions and the order is perfectly within his jurisdiction in terms of Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860.

The matter had been heard earlier by me on 9.7.2012, 26.7.2012, 30.7.2012, 31.7.2012, 6.8.2012 and finally on 8.8.2012.

This Court, having heard the learned counsel, arrived at the conclusion that the issue, which requires to be decided first, is about the jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar to adjudicate the matter and a prima facie view had been expressed in the interim order dated 26.7.2012, which is as follows:-

"Heard Sri A.D. Saunders for the petitioner and Sri S.C. Dwivedi for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Sri Shailendra� and Sri Prabhakar Awasthi in Writ Petition No. 66313 which also assails the impugned orders. Sri Sarad Srivastava has appeared for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 44765 of 2011 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

The main issue raised by Sri Saunders is that the Deputy Registrar had no jurisdiction to proceed to adjudicate the controversy on the issue framed by himself as to who were the valid office bearers entitled to present the cause before the Deputy Registrar. He submits that once this issue was framed, and the issue had actually arisen then the only option for the Deputy Registrar was to refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority for decision under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. He has relied on the number of decisions including the Division Bench Judgement in the case of All India Council and another Vs. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi Region, Varanasi and another 1988 Allahabad Page 236.

On the other hand Sri Suresh Dwivedi contends that the Deputy Registrar had to decide the dispute in terms of the Division Bench decision and since there was no bona fide or real dispute, therefore, he was not bound to refer the matter and he relied on the Division Bench judgment of 1995 Volume 2 UPLBEC page 1242.

After the hearing proceeded Sri Dwivedi prayed that the matter be taken up tomorrow.

Put up tomorrow.

Interim order shall continue until further orders."

It is in the light of the aforesaid order passed that the learned counsels have been requested to confine their arguments, which were finally heard on 8.8.2012, on which date the following order was passed:-

"Heard Sri Navin Sinha, learned Senior Counsel and Sri A.D. Saunders for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 23731 of 2011, Sri Shailendra and Sri Prabhakar Awasthi for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 66313 of 2011, Sri Saral Srivastava for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 44765 of 2011 and Sri K.N. Tripathi alongwith Sri Suresh Chandra Dwivedi in Writ Petition No. 40639 of 2011.

Since all the learned counsels are representing the respective parties in the aforesaid writ petitions and respondents as well, they have also been heard alongwith the learned Standing Counsel in support of their submissions which have been raised.

The first question which has to be dealt with by this Court in relation to the dispute raised is as to whether the respondent Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits Kanpur had the jurisdiction to entertain the dispute and decide the same, inasmuch as, the contention of Sri Navin Sinha and Sri Saral Srivastava respectively is that the dispute could not have been decided by him as it relates to the continuance of the office bearers of the society known as Christ Church College Society and therefore in terms of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 the impugned order is unsustainable and should be quashed with a direction to the parties to approach the Prescribed Authority for such a declaration.

On the other hand Sri Shaliendra, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 66313 of 2011, where the petitioner claims itself to be the real contender, is that the matter should be remitted back to the Deputy Registrar for decision afresh, inasmuch as, the objections raised on behalf of the said petitioner and the material supplied have not been considered and therefore the impugned order is bad for non-consideration of relevant material.

Countering these submissions Sri K.N. Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Liyakat M. Khan and Sri S.P. Prakash who are the respondents in all the three writ petitions, except writ petition no. 40639 of 2011, contends that the dispute has been decided by the Deputy Registrar in view of the material that was placed before him and in effect it is not a doubt or dispute with regard to the office bearers, and rather it is in relation to the bifurcation of the powers to be exercised by the body which is entitled to control the affairs of the society, and as such the petitioners in the other writ petitions should be relegated to file a civil suit. He contends that since all the three petitioners in the aforesaid three writ petitions are not entitled to function as the valid office bearers of the society they cannot maintain the writ petitions nor does the matter require any reference to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, orders reserved."

It is in the aforesaid background that the matter is proposed to be disposed of finally, inasmuch as, in the opinion of the Court, since all the three contesting parties as petitioners and the contesting respondents have filed their documents, it was not necessary to call for any further Affidavit. Accordingly, this Court is proceeding to dispose of the three petitions simultaneously.

Sri Keshari Nath Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel, in all the three cases, has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the Principal of the College has no authority to institute Writ Petition No.23731 of 2011. His second objection is that the questions that have been raised emanate from the bifurcation of the Management of the parent body including the Diocese which clearly relates to the question as to who is the Bishop entitled to chair the Society and this question, being an issue of a dispute of title, is beyond the power of the Prescribed Authority, as such, the writ petition has to be dismissed to enable the petitioners to seek a declaration before the Civil Court. His submission is that the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this ground alone apart from the fact that no other legal ground is available to maintain the cause as set up by the petitioners.

Replying to the aforesaid preliminary submission of Sri Tripathi, Sri Navin Sinha submits that the petitioner of Writ Petition No.23731 of 2011, being the Secretary of the Society, is entitled to represent the Society and file this writ petition. Reliance is placed by him on the by-laws, which are said to have been amended in the year 1986. He, therefore, contends that the petitioner has a locus to maintain the petition. This aspect of the locus of the petitioner has also been questioned by Sri Shailendra contending that there has been no amendment in the by-laws and in the absence of any valid amendment having been carried out, the Principal could claim himself only to be an ex-officio Member under the original by-laws and not as a Secretary. In the opinion of the Court, this issue would also involve the adjudication of the status of the Principal vis-a-vis the correct by-laws. It is this issue which is in contest between the parties and also includes the dispute about the amendment of the by-laws. In such a situation, the locus of the petitioner Dr. Parvez E. Dean to represent the Society as it's Secretary, by virtue of his being the Principal, cannot be out rightly rejected on the ground of locus. It is also evident that the Principal was representing Mr. S.R. Cutting, who claims himself to be the Bishop of Agra Diocese before the Deputy Registrar himself as is evident from the recital of the impugned order. In the circumstances, the Court would not throw out the said petitioner on the ground of locus.

The second objection of Sri Tripathi, with regard to filing of the Suit, is in essence the main issue and, therefore, is being decided along with the issue of jurisdiction hereinafter.

Sri Sinha advanced his submissions by contending that long back in the year 1970, 6 Churches merged together to form the Church of North India. According to him, this amalgamation of Churches further was followed by creation of a separate Diocese at Agra and in that chain, the Diocese of Lucknow came to be bifurcated territorially and by metes and bounds for all purposes between the Diocese of Lucknow and Diocese of Agra. For this, Sri Sinha relies on certain resolutions that have been brought on record to contend that the bifurcation of the religious order of Diocese was brought about in accordance with the Rules & Regulations of the supreme Church body and as a matter of fact after the bifurcation, the newly created Diocese of Agra took over charge of all the properties within its territorial jurisdiction including the educational Institutions and the education Board managing such institutions. Consequently the Bishop of Agra became the Chairman of Christ Church College Society. He contends that the by-laws as it stood in the year 1976 clearly provided that the Bishop of Lucknow, for the time being, or his duly appointed Commissary shall be the ex-officio Member of the Society and shall also be a Member of the governing body as per clause 8 (1) of the original by-laws. He further submits that the office-bearers of the Society have been defined in clause 12 which provides that there shall be a Chairman, a Vice-Chairman and other office-bearers provided always that the Bishop of Lucknow, or his duly appointed Commissary shall be elected as the Chairman of the Society. His contention is that after the bifurcation of the Diocese and the adjustments which were carried out, meetings were convened by the Diocese of Lucknow itself under the then Chairmanship of Bishop Rt. Rev. Deen Dayal resolving and recommending that the Bishop of Agra shall be the legal successor of the Bishop of Lucknow in all the constitution of the institutions within the territory of Agra Diocese. It was also recommended and accepted that such constitution of the educational institutions or Society shall be altered accordingly and in place of Lucknow, it shall be treated to be changed as Agra. He has invited the attention of the Court to the recommendations dated 31.3.1976; copy whereof has been filed along with the second Supplementary-Affidavit dated 23.3.2011. It is submitted that as a consequence of this decision, the Bishop of Agra came to be duly nominated and this decision was chaired by the then undisputed Bishop of Lucknow. He, therefore, contends that this resolution itself will amount to a nomination of the Bishop of Agra as the Chairman of the Christ Church College Society in terms of the by-laws referred to herein above.

Sri Sinha, therefore, submits that this came to be executed formally with the Bishop of Agra Diocese taking over as the Chairman of the Christ Church College Society and which is also reflected in the minutes of 21st Annual General Meeting of the Society dated 21.2.1977; copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-2A to the rejoinder-affidavit in Writ Petition No.23731 of 2011. He, therefore, contends that there was a clear take over of the office of Chairman by the Bishop of Agra in 1976-77 and since then it is only the Bishop of Agra who chairs the meeting of the Society. He further contends that the Bishop of Lucknow for the past more than 35 years has never acted as the Chairman of the Society or functioned as such. It is only after the new Bishop of Lucknow, who has taken over namely Rt. Rev. Morris Edgar Dan that this dispute has been raised on the ground that there has been no valid amendment in the by-laws of the Society and even if the Diocese was bifurcated or its properties were separated, the Society remained the same and there was no bifurcation or amendment so as to allow the Bishop of Agra to function as the Chairman. Sri Sinha submits that the office of Chairman and a few Members is ex-officio but the other office-bearers and Members of the governing body are elected and, therefore, any doubt or dispute in relation to the fact as to who is entitled to continue as a valid office-bearer is an issue which should go before the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. He contends that the respondent - Deputy Registrar, therefore, travelled beyond his jurisdiction in proceeding to determine as to who are the valid office-bearers entitled to manage the Society or present the documents or amendment of the by-laws or the renewal of the Society. The contention of Sri Sinha, therefore, is that the impugned order being without jurisdiction, the same deserves to be quashed.

He further submits that so far as the recognition of the contesting respondents Mr. Khan and Mr. Prakash is concerned, the parent body or the Diocese through which the respondents claimed themselves to have control is the Lucknow Diocese Trust Association which is a Company registered under Companies Act. The contesting respondents filed Form-32 and other forms, before the Registrar of Companies for registering them as the Director of the Company which has been rejected and on account of their misconduct, they are also sought to be criminally prosecuted. It is, therefore, submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the contesting respondents have been erroneously given the benefit of recognition that too even by placing an incorrect reliance on the order of the District Judge, Gorakhpur, dated 29.1.2008 which is in relation to the property of St. Andrews College at Gorakhpur and which has no concern with the Christ Church College Society presently in question. He further contends that the claim of the petitioner is in accordance with the by-laws and the conclusions drawn are erroneous, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the matter is to be remitted to the Prescribed Authority for decision in accordance with law.

Sri Sinha further contends that in the dispute which had earlier come up before this Court and had crystallised in the judgment of the Division Bench dated 11.8.2010, Special Appeal (Defective) No.731 of 2010, also makes it imperative on the Deputy Registrar to refer the dispute under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. Not only this, a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.59988 of 2010 has also directed the matter to be decided by the Prescribed Authority in case there is a dispute between the office-bearers of the Society. A true copy of the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 29.9.2010 has also been brought on record as Annexure-57 to the writ petition.

Replying to the aforesaid submissions, Sri Keshari Nath Tripathi contends that the provisions of Section 25 have to be read as they stand and the same would indicate that resort to the said provision can be had only if there is a doubt or dispute with regard to the election or continuance of an office-bearer of a Society. Sri Tripathi lays stress on the words incorporated in the proviso thereto to contend that it is only an election which can be set aside if it is referred under Section 25 of the Act. He submits that in the instant case, the real dispute is as to which Diocese has the control over the Society and whose Bishop is to be the Chairman of the Society. Sri Tripathi contends that this declaration is, therefore, of the nature of a declaration about the Bishop of concerned Diocese who would be entitled to act as Chairman. According to him, this relief can only be granted by the Civil Court and not by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Act. He further contends that the findings recorded by the Deputy Registrar is on the basis of the material adduced and having taken notice of that, he has passed the order. The contention of Sri Tripathi further is that there might have been a division of the Diocese and it's properties but there was no bifurcation, dissolution or reformation of the Society namely Christ Church College Society. The constitution and the Management remained the same and no action was taken under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act to alter the constitution of the governing body of the Society. He further submits that any amendment brought about under the Chairmanship of the Bishop of Agra Diocese or the Principal of the College is not a valid amendment of the by-laws and, therefore, has been rightly discarded by the Assistant Registrar. Sri Tripathi, therefore, contends that these questions have to be raised only in a civil Suit and there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the impugned order or refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority.

Sri Shailendra, appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.66313 of 2011, contends that there are 3 bodies namely the Diocese which is concerned with only the religious affairs of the Church. The Church of North India and the Diocese at Lucknow is entitled to manage the affairs of the institutions under it through the Diocesan Education Board which is another body. The Lucknow Diocesan Trust Association deals with the property matters of the Lucknow Diocese. He contends that Lucknow diocese, which was admittedly controlling the Society and the Bishop of Lucknow was the Chairman, has never appointed or nominated the Bishop of Agra diocese to act as the Chairman of the Christ Church College Society. He further contends that it is only from within the Lucknow diocese that any person can be nominated and not a different Bishop. He further contends that there is no evidence to confer this authority on the Bishop of Agra and the alleged amendment relied upon by the petitioner is not inconformity with any statutory provision, as such, the same has been rightly discarded by the Deputy Registrar. He further contends that the petitioner of Writ Petition No.66313 of 2011 namely the Bishop of Lucknow had filed ample evidence to bring on record his claim, which has been completely overlooked and ignored by the Deputy Registrar, hence the impugned order is vitiated. Sri Shailendra, however, submits that this issue does not require any remittance to the Prescribed Authority and on the contrary, the impugned order should be set aside with a direction to the Deputy Registrar to decide the matter again after considering the documents that have been relied upon by the petitioner. His contention is that the other 3 contenders including the contesting respondents are rank trespassers and it is only the Bishop of Lucknow, who is entitled to have control over the affairs of the Christ Church College Society.

The third writ petition has been filed by Conel Swing represented by Sri Saral Srivastava, Advocate, who contends that none of these contesting parties are entitled to control over the Society and it is the Anglican Church which has the authority through his Bishop to manage the affairs of the Society. He, however, contends that this is a clear dispute of the office-bearers of the Society and, therefore, in his opinion, the matter should be referred to the Prescribed Authority for decision in accordance with law.

The learned Standing Counsel has supported the impugned order in all the three writ petitions and it is urged that if the parties are at variance, it is open to them to file a civil Suit.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the dispute arose with the direction of the learned single Judge issued in the judgment dated 24.5.2010 in Writ Petition No.28575 of 2010. The said writ petition was filed by the present petitioner in the leading writ petition, namely Dr. Parvez E. Dean, challenging the order of the Deputy Registrar dated 28.4.2010 whereby the renewal of the Society had been cancelled and a further direction had been issued to the respondent - Bishop S.P. Prakash to submit, papers and renewal fees for the renewal of the Society. The order of the Deputy Registrar was quashed by this Court with a direction that the Deputy Registrar should not have proceeded with the matter and he should have referred the matter to the State Government under Section 3-B of the 1860 Act as applicable to the State of Uttar Pradesh. The order of the Deputy Registrar was, therefore, set aside and the matter was sent to the State Government.

Aggrieved by the said decision of the learned single Judge, the respondent - Liaquat M. Khan filed Special Appeal (Defective) No.731 of 2010, which appeal was allowed and the order of the learned single Judge was set aside remanding the matter back to the Deputy Registrar on the ground that any dispute relating to the amendment of the by-laws has to be decided by the Deputy Registrar. While allowing the Special Appeal, the Division Bench further found that if the Registrar prima facie comes to a conclusion that there is a dispute as to the list of office-bearers, then the matter shall be referred to the Prescribed Authority. The judgment of the Special Appeal is Annexure-55 to the writ petition.

It appears that after the disposal of the Appeal, the matter was not being proceeded with by the Deputy Registrar and at that stage, the petitioners of Writ Petition No.66313 of 2011 namely Rt. Rev. Morris Edgar Dan filed a writ petition, being Writ Petition No.59988 of 2010, praying that the representation filed by them before the State Government on 14.8.2010 be directed to be decided.

The contesting respondents at that stage produced the copy of the judgment in Special Appeal and the learned single Judge, after taking notice of the Division Bench order, held that this cannot be done inasmuch as the Division Bench has already directed the Deputy Registrar to decide the matter and in case it is found that there is some dispute between the office-bearers, then the matter has to be referred to the Prescribed Authority. Accordingly, the Deputy Registrar was directed to proceed with the matter in the light of the directions issued by the Division Bench. A copy of the judgment dated 29.9.2010 is Annexure-57 to the writ petition.

It is, therefore, clear that the Deputy Registrar had to proceed in the matter accordingly and if he discovered any dispute relating to the office-bearers of the Society, then he had to refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority. The said Division Bench judgment was, therefore, binding on the contesting respondent - Liaquat M. Khan and S.P. Prakash, who had themselves relied upon the said judgment before the learned single Judge subsequently.

It is at this stage that the argument of Sri Keshari Nath Tripathi has to be considered. The dispute is two fold namely about the amendment and also the entitlement of the valid set of office-bearers to control the Society. To put it differently, it is only the valid office-bearers, who can claim to have carried out the amendment and can claim continuance as office-bearers. This naturally involves a decision in relation to the fact as to which Bishop, out of 3 petitioners and the contesting respondent, is entitled to chair the Society. The Assistant Registrar, in my opinion, has undertaken an exercise to find out the control of the properties and the Societies which was beyond his purview. Even if the Deputy Registrar was attempting to find out the real Chairman and the other office-bearers, then too even, he was bound to refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority. As a matter of fact, while proceeding to decide the dispute, the Deputy Registrar has recorded that the first question which has to be decided by him is as to who is the valid office-bearer entitled to carry on the proceedings on behalf of the Society. It is, therefore, clear that the Deputy Registrar himself was certain about this fact that the essential dispute is about the office-bearers of the Society. The Deputy Registrar, therefore, in my opinion, should not have attempted to tread in this field as it fell outside the scope of Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and squarely fell within the scope of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of All India Council and another Vs. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi Region, Varanasi and another, AIR 1988 Allahabad 236.

Sri Keshari Nath Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, contends that as a matter of fact all the three petitioners have neither a genuine or a bona fide dispute which may require a reference and the Deputy Registrar was not bound to do so. If they were aggrieved, they should have sought a declaration of their status as the concerned Bishop entitled to act as the Chairman of the Society for which they have to file a civil Suit.

In the opinion of the Court, even if the office of the Chairman is ex-officio by virtue of being a Bishop, the same also falls within the scope of a doubt or dispute of the continuance of an office-bearer of the Society. The jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority would, therefore, engulf within itself to hold as to who is the person entitled to function as the Chairman of the Society inasmuch as the Chairman is also an office-bearer of the Society. Merely because he is an ex-officio person, the same would not dilute the nature of the dispute inasmuch as there are 4 separate persons claiming themselves to be the Bishop of different bodies entitled to act as Chairman. The aforesaid dispute, therefore, is also essentially a dispute of an office-bearer. Apart from this, there is also a serious dispute as to whether the Principal can act as an ex-officio Secretary or the Secretary has to be elected. This dispute has arisen on account of the amendment in the by-laws as alleged by one of the parties. This, in turn, would again bring the dispute to the forum for decision as to who were the valid persons acting as office-bearers entitled to carry out the amendment. Consequently, it is the dispute of the office-bearers which has to be gone into before considering the issue of amendment of the by-laws.

It is for this reason that the Division Bench in it's judgment dated 11.8.2010 had made the observations of referring the matter to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Act. The Deputy Registrar has completely overlooked this aspect of the matter and has, therefore, travelled beyond his jurisdiction.

There is one more contention which deserves to be noted namely that of Sri Shailendra for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.66313 of 2011. The Deputy Registrar, while proceeding to dispose of the claim, has completely overlooked the documents on which reliance was placed by the said petitioner and has, therefore, failed to record any reason or cogent finding for rejecting the claim of the said petitioner. For the said reason also, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

The argument of Sri Tripathi that the parties should go to a Suit may arise in the event the Prescribed Authority proceeds to decide the matter one way or the other. The decision of the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 is always subject to the outcome of a regular Suit. In the event the parties are aggrieved by any decision of the Prescribed Authority, then in that event it is always open to raise the plea that such an issue should be resolved through a declaratory Suit.

So far as the present dispute is concerned, the Deputy Registrar clearly erred in not referring the matter to the Prescribed Authority which would have been more appropriate and in consonance with the direction of the Division Bench as observed herein above.

Accordingly, all the three writ petitions are allowed and the impugned order passed by the Deputy Registrar dated 8.4.2011 is quashed. The Prescribed Authority shall decide the dispute preferably within a period of 6 months of the date of presentation of the claim before him and the parties will be obliged to file their objections before the Prescribed Authority in the light of the observations made herein above.

No order as to costs.

Dt. August 9, 2012

Irshad