Alok Srivastava (En.No.8299) And ... vs Registrar/A.R., Firms Societies ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 7124 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Reportable.
 
Court No. - 36
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 44908 of 2017
 

 
Petitioner :- Alok Srivastava (En.No.8299) And Another
 
Respondent :- Registrar/A.R., Firms Societies & Chits, Allahabad & 3 Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Nandan,Shri T.P. Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
		With
 
 WRIT - C No. - 53462 of 2016
 

 
Petitioner :- T.P. Singh
 
Respondent :- Registrar / Assistant Registrar Firms And Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailendra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kartikeya Saran,Manish Goyal,Ram M. Kaushik
 
		
 
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

Both the above writ petitions have been tagged together vide order dated 22.3.2017. They have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgement.

Heard Sri G.K. Singh learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sankalp Narayan and Sri Siddharth Nandan learned counsels for the petitioners and Sri Ram Kaushik and Sri Kartikeya Saran for respondent no.2 in the connected Writ Petition No.53462 of 2016 (T.P. Singh Vs. Registrar/Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits Allahabad & another). Sri S.D. Kautilya learned Advocate has put in appearance for the respondent nos. 2 & 3, in Writ Petition No.44908 of 2017.

The Writ Petition No.53462 of 2016 has been filed by Sri T.P. Singh seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Registrar/Assistant Registrar, Firm Societies and Chits, Allahabad (in short 'Assistant Registrar, Societes') to decide the objections filed by him in File No.1, File No.2, File No.3 and File No.4 against the respondent No.2 namely Kayastha Pathshala through its President, under Section 4, 12-D and Section 24 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (in short 'the Act 1860').

The connected Writ Petition No.44908 of 2017 has been filed by two petitioners namely Sri Alok Srivastava, son of late Satish Chandra Srivastava and Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, son of late Kailash Narayan Srivastava claiming to be member and elected President of the Society, namely Kayastha Pathshala Prayag. In the said writ petition, a prayer has been made to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 26.8.2017, passed by the Assistant Registrar insofar as it had differed to adjudicate on the objections of the said petitioners under Section 12-D of the Act 1860. Another relief in the nature of mandamus has been sought commanding the Assistant Registrar, Societies to decide the said objections.

Before dealing with the controversy at hands, it would be relevant to note that the petitioners in both the writ petitions are different. The limited issue raised during the course of arguments is with regard to the removal of Sri T.P. Singh, (the petitioner in Writ Petition No.53462 of 2016) from being member of the General Body of the Society vide resolution dated 17.1.2016. It would further be noteworthy that the order dated 26.8.2017 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Allahabad had not been challenged by the petitioner in the said writ petition. The said writ petition is simply for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the Assistant Registrar to decide the issues raised by the petitioner therein, in File No. 1 to File No.4, raising dispute regarding membership of few members of the General Body of the Society under Section 4; for cancellation of the registration of the Society under Section 12-D of the Act 1860 and for making investigation into the affairs of the Society under Section 24 of the Act 1860.

Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has confined his arguments to the prayer made in Writ Petition No.53462 of 2016 and disputed the preliminary objections of the respondents that the said writ petition had become infructuous in view of the adjudication made by the Assistant Registrar vide order dated 26.8.2017. Placing the said order before the Court, it is vehemently contended by Sri G.K.Singh that the dispute regarding removal of Sri T.P. Singh as member of the General Body of the Society vide resolution dated 17.1.2016 i.e. validity of the said resolution had not been adjudicated rather the Assistant Registrar had refrained himself from making any adjudication in view of the pendency of the said Writ Petition No.53462 of 2016. The last paragraph of the order dated 26.8.2017 passed by the Assistant Registrar (from pages 101 to 102 of the Writ Petition No.44908 of 2017) has been read over by learned Senior Advocate to impress upon the Court that the dispute raised by the petitioner Sri T.P. Singh had not been adjudicated.

Placing reliance upon the judgements of this Court in C/M A.S. Degree College Association & Anr. V. State of U.P. & Anr. 2016(4) ADJ 207, Board of Trustee of the Shia College and the School & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. 2015(6) ADJ 500(LB), Lachi Ram Yadav & Ors. v. Asstt. Registrar Firms, Chits and Societies & Ors. 2015(1) UPLBEC 830 and in Special Appeal No.378 of 2016 (Shri Adarsh Sanskrit Vidyalaya & 2 Ors. v. C/M Shri Adarsh Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Ambedkar Nagar & 6 Ors.) it was submitted that the dispute regarding removal of a member of the General Body of the Society can very well be adjudicated by the Assistant Registrar within the scope of his jurisdiction under Section 4-B of the Act 1860.

He would vehemently submit that under Section 4-B(1) of the Act 1860 (as amended in its application to State of U.P.), the list of members of General Body of the Society has to be filed before the Registrar mentioning the details of the members. On the presentation of the said list, the Registrar can examine the correctness thereof by summoning the original records of the Society such as the register of members of General Body and minutes book, cashbook, receipt book of membership fee and bank passbook etc.

Under sub-section (2) of Section 4-B of the Act 1860, any change in the list of members of the General Body of the Society on account of any contingency such as induction, renewal, registration or death of any member, has to be reported to the Registrar within one month from the date of such change.

It is, thus, submitted by learned Senior Advocate that a combined reading of the abovenoted provisions makes it evident that on the change being reported in the list of members of the General Body of the Society on account of removal of a member(s), the Registrar is empowered to summon the original records to examine the validity of the decision for such removal. In other words, the change in the list of members of the General Body of the Society is not to be registered as as matter of course by the Registrar without examining the correctness thereof, inasmuch as, he has jurisdiction to summon the original records while registering the list of members of the Society under sub-section (1) of Section 4-B of the Act 1860. It is further submitted that the said power is not confined to the stage of or at the time of registration/renewal of the Society, rather it would be open for the Registrar to examine and decide a membership dispute at anytime, whenever such dispute is raised.

Sri S.D. Kautilya, learned Advocate appearing for respondents, on the other hand, submits that the writ petition filed by Sri T.P. Singh had become infructuous inasmuch as the issue being raised by the petitioner Sri T.P. Singh, had been addressed by the Assistant Registrar and plea of the petitioner for declaring the minutes of meetings dated 17.1.2016 and 7.2.2016 of the Executive Committee had been rejected being beyond his jurisdiction.

The prayer of the petitioner Sri T.P. Singh, in the application moved under Section 4 of the Act 1860, placed before the Court, reads as under:-

"izkFkZuk

vr% Jheku ls izkFkZuk gS fd mi;ZqDr of.kZr rF;ksa ds vkyksd es lkslkbVht jftLVª'ku vf/kfu;e] 1860 dh /kkjk 4 ds vUrxZr vius vf/kdkjksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, dk;Zdkfj.kh lfefr dk fu.kZ; fnukad 17-01-2016 rFkk 07-02-2016 ml lhek rd ftlesa izkFkhZ dh lnL;rk izfrcfU/[email protected] dh x;h gS] dks fuEu dkj.kksa ij fujLr dj fuEufyf[kr ?kks"k.kk dh tk;s &

1- dk;Zdkfj.kh lfefr ds ukfer rhl lnL;ksa esa ls mu lnL;ksa ds er dks ux.; o 'kwU; ?kksf"kr fd;k tk;s ftUgksus mDr izLrko ds Ik{k esa er fn;k gSA tSlk fd dk;Zdkfj.kh dh dk;ZZOk`Rr fnukad 17-01-2016 ,oa 07-02-2016 ls Li"V gS fd vU;Fkk Hkh izLrko vYi er ls ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA

2- laYkXu izi=ksa ls Lik"V gS fd uSlfxZd U;k; ds fu;eksa dk mYy?kau djrs gq;s fcuk iVy ds le{k ;g yk;s fd fdlds lkFk nqO;Zokgkj gqvk gS] fdlus bldh f'kdk;r dh gS vkSj mlds mRrj esa izkFkhZ dk mDr O;fDRk ls dzkl bDtkfeu djus dk volj fn;k x;k fd ugh] iw.kZr;k pquko ;kfpdk ds fuLrkj.k esa vojks/k iSnk djus ds fy, }s"k Hkkouk ls izkFkhZ dh lnL;rk lekIr dh x;hA

3- ;g mn~?kksf"kr fd;k tk;s fd fu;ekoyh ds fu;e 11 lifBr fu;e 49 esa ukfer dk;Zdkfj.kh lfefr ds lnL;ksa dks ernku djus dh O;oLFkk fu;e fo:) rFkk viztkrkaf=d gksus ds dkj.k 'kwU; gSA

4- laLFkk dh lk/kkj.k lHkk }kjk iznRr lnL;rk dk;Zdkfj.kh lfefr }kjk lekIr djuk voS/kkfud gSA "

The relevant observations made by the Assistant Registrar in the order dated 26.8.2017, placed before the Court, reads as under:-

"lks0iath0vf/k0 1860 dh /kkjk 4ch ds vuqlkj fdlh lkslkbVh ds jftLVª[email protected] ds le; ml lkslkbVh ds lk/kkj.k lHkk ds lnL;ksa dh lwph lnL;ksa ds uke] firk dk uke] irk vkSj O;olk; mfYyf[kr djrs gq;s jftLVªkj ds ikl nkf[ky dh tk;sxhA jftLVªkj ,slh lkslkbVh ds lk/kkj.k lHkk ds lnL;ksa dh lwph dh 'kq)rk dk ijh{k.k lkslkbVh dh lk/kkj.k lHkk dh lnL;rk iaftdk vkSj mldh dk;Zo`Rr iaftdk] dS'kcqd] lnL;rk 'kqYd dh jlhn cqd vkSj lkslkbVh dh cSad iklcqd ds vk/kkj ij djsxkA mDr /kkjk ds voyksdu ek= ls Li"V gS fd fdlh laLFkk ds [email protected] ds le; izLrqr lk/kkj.k lHkk dh lwph dh 'kq)rk ds ijh{k.k ds vf/kdkj ml laLFkk ds vfHkys[kksa ds vk/kkj ij jftLVªkj dks iznRRk fd;s x;s gSA fdlh laLFkk dh lk/kj.k lHkk vFkok izcU/k lfefr dh fdlh ,slh cSBd dh dk;Zokgh ftles fdlh lnL; dh lnL;rk dk fu"dklu fd;k x;k gks] dks fujLr djus ds vf/kdkj iznRr ugh fd;s x;s gSA Jh Vh0ih0 flag }kjk dk;Zdkfj.kh dh cSBd fnukad 17-01-2016 ,oa cSBd fnukad 07-02-2016] ftles mudh lnL;rk lht dh x;h gS] dks fujlr djus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k gS] vr% v/kksgLrk{kjh ds fu"d"kZ ds vuqlkj mi;qZDr fooksfpr fcUnqvksa ds vkyksd es iz'uxr izdj.k lkslkbVh iathdj.k vf/kfu;e 1860 dh /kkjk 4ch ds rgr vkPNkfnr ugh gSA "

With reference to the said observations, it is submitted that the dispute being raised by the petitioner is beyond the scope of enquiry by the Assistant Registrar under Section 4-B of the Act 1860. Moreover, the aforesaid order of the Assistant Registrar has not been challenged on merits. No mandamus as such may be issued. The writ petition may be rendered infructuous as no further adjudication is required.

In so far as the connected Writ Petition No.44908 of 2017 is concerned, it is contended by the learned Advocate for the respondent that in the said writ petition, the prayer has been confined to the proceedings initiated under Section 12-D of the Act by two petitioners namely Alok Srivastava and Rajesh Kumar Srivastava. The decisions of the Executive Committee of the Society dated 17.1.2016 and 7.2.2016 are not under challenge therein. In so far as the proceedings under Section 12-D of the Act, there is no adjudication by the Assistant Registrar in the order impugned therein. Moreover, no submissions have been made by the petitioners in that regard. The Writ Petition No.44908 of 2017, for the prayer made therein, has not been pressed and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed as such.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, only question which arises before the Court for adjudication is as to whether the Assistant Registrar has power to decide the issue of validity of resolution of the Executive Committee of the registered Society in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 4-B of the Act 1860.

The consequential question would be as to what relief can be granted to the petitioner in Writ Petition No.53462 of 2016. In so far as Writ Petition No.44908 of 2017 is concerned, no submissions have been made by Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate during the course of arguments.

To deal with the said question, it would be apposite to go through the provisions as contained in Section 4-B of the Act 1860, which reads as under:-

"4-B (1) At the time of registration/renewal of a society, list of members of General Body of that society shall be filed with the Registrar mentioning the name, father's name, address and occupation of the members. The Registrar shall examine the correctness of the list of members of the General Body of such society on the basis of the register of members of the General Body and minutes book thereof, cash book, receipt book of membership fee and bank pass book of the society.

(2) If there is any change in the list of members of the General Body of the society referred to in sub-section (1), on account of induction, removal, registration or death of any member, a modified list of members of General Body, shall be filed with the Registrar, within one month from the date of change.

(3) The list of members of the General Body to be filed with the Registrar under this Section shall be signed by two office bearers and two executive members of the society"

Section 4-B of the Act, 1860 has been inserted after Section 4-A of the Act 1860 by U.P. Amendment Act, namely U.P. Act No.23 of 2013 w.e.f. 12.7.2013.

The statement of objects and reasons of the said Amendment Act specifically notices that there was no provision in the Act 1860 (Act No.21 of 1860) enacted by the Parliament for filing of list of General Body of the Society. As a result of it, large number of Societies are disputed due to non-existence of its correct list of General Body with the Registrar. In several cases, illegal person fraudulently produces before the Registrar an incorrect list of the General Body of the Society and claims to be the member or office-bearer of such Society. Before the said amendment, Section 4 only provides for filing of annual list of Managing Body of the Society. In order to avoid any such situation, the State Legislature has decided to amend the Act by insertion of Section 4-B to its application to Uttar Pradesh to provide for filing of the list of General Body with the Registrar at the time of registration or renewal of such Society.

A conjoint reading of sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 4-B makes it evident that on the presentation of list of members of General Body of the Society, the Registrar has to examine the correctness of the said list by asking the person concerned to produce records of induction of such member. The records which shall be examined by the Registrar have been narrated in sub-section (1).

It is incumbent upon the person seeking registration/renewal of the Society to produce list of members of General Body of that Society signed by two office bearers and two executive members of the Society [as per sub-section (3)]. On such presentation of the list, the Registrar shall make enquiry in order to satisfy himself about authenticity/genuineness of the said list.

Sub-section (2) further provides that in case of any change of list of members of the General Body on account of any contingency of induction, removal, registration or death of any member, such change has to be reported to the Registrar by production of modified list within one month of such change.

What logically follows is that in case of any change reported to the Registrar by the office bearers and executive members of the Society, the Registrar can examine and make an enquiry regarding the correctness of said change by asking the office bearers or such member of the Society to produce original records before it so as to satisfy himself that such change had actually occured. The said enquiry, however, would be confined to two aspects:-

(1) Whether the change has been made by adopting the procedure prescribed in the bye-laws of the Society. To exemplify, in a case of induction of a member, he can look to the fact as to whether he was duly inducted in a meeting of the General Body of the Society convened as per the procedure provided in the Bye-laws and further whether the membership fee had been duly deposited in accordance with the said procedure.

(2) Similarly in a case of removal of a member, he can examine the fact as to whether the removal was made by adopting the procedure prescribed in the Bye-laws of the Society.

In other words, the decision making process to the extent of holding/convening of a valid meeting of the General Body and the resolution if any, had been passed in the said meeting as per the procedure prescribed under the bye-laws of the Society, can be examined by the Assistant Registrar.

In any case, the enquiry being made by the Assistant Registrar is summary in nature as he enjoins with the power to look to the original records of the Society. Beyond this, the Registrar cannot examine the validity or correctness of the decision taken by the Executive Body of the Society on merits. It is not open for him to declare the resolution of Executive Committee of the Society as null and void. The scope of jurisdiction of the Assistant Registrar under Section 4-B is confined to an administrative exercise of power so as to satisfy himself that the list of change submitted before it as per sub-section (2) of Section 4-B is correct and is in conformity with the original records of the Society and has been presented by a valid office-bearer of the Society.

In so far as the stage of enquiry by the Assistant Registrar is concerned, there cannot be any doubt or dispute that, in view of the statement of objects and reasons for insertion of Section 4-B of the Act 1860 by U.P. Act No.23 of 2013 as noted above, the adjudication on the question within the scope of enquiry under the said provision, can be made by the Assistant Registrar at any stage whenever the dispute is raised regarding correctness of the list of General body of the Society i.e. even after the registration or renewal is done. As noted above, the object of the Amending Act is to minimize the litigation that may crop up on account of non-existence of a valid/correct list of the General Body. This would invariably mean that in case of any dispute raised by the Assistant Registrar regarding the correctness of the list of the General Body of the Society, he can invoke his jurisdiction to adjudicate the same in order to minimize the chance of a dispute in future. There cannot be any dispute also to the position that the decision of the Registrar/Assistant Registrar under Section 4-B of the Act 1860 is always subject to the decision of a Civil Court, if any, in a civil suit.

In so far as the nature of powers exercised by the Registrar/Assistant Registrar under the Act, 1860 is concerned, though the same appears to be by and large administrative in nature, however, looking to the language of Section 4-B of the Act, 1860, where the Registrar has been provided power to examine the documentary records and in case of any dispute regarding the membership, he is enjoined with the power to adjudicate the same, it cannot be said that the Registrar acts as a purely Administrative Authority while exercising its power under Section 4-B of the Act, 1860.

The legal principles laying down the conditions when the act of a Statutory Authority would be a quasi-judicial act, emerging from the decisions in R v. Dublin Corpn. (1878) 2 Ir R 371, R. v. Electricity Commrs. (1924) 1 KB 171 and Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas S. Advani, AIR 1950 SC 222, have been summarised in Indian National Congress (I) v. Institute of Social Welfare & Ors. (2002) 5 SCC 685 in paragraphs 24 to 27 as under:-

"24. The legal principles laying down when an act of a statutory authority would be a quasi-judicial act, which emerge from the aforestated decisions are these :

Where (a) a statutory authority empowered under a statute to do any act (b) which would prejudicially affect the subject (c) although there is no lis or two contending parties and the contest is between the authority and the subject and (d) the statutory authority is required to act judicially under the statute, the decision of the said authority is quasi-judicial.

25. Applying the aforesaid principle, we are of the view that the presence of a lis or contest between the contending parties before a statutory authority, in the absence of any other attributes of a quasi-judicial authority is sufficient to hold that such a statutory authority is quasi judicial authority. However, in the absence of a lis before a statutory authority, the authority would be quasi-judicial authority if it is required to act judicially.

26. Coming to the second argument of learned counsel for the respondent, it is true that mere presence of one or two attributes of quasi judicial authority would not make an administrative act as quasi-judicial act. In some case, an administrative authority may determine question of fact before arriving at a decision which may affect the right of an appellant but such a decision would not be quasi-judicial act. It is different thing that in some cases fair-play may demand affording of an opportunity to the claimant whose right is going to be affected by the act of the administrative authority, still such an administrative authority would not be quasi-judicial authority.

27. What distinguishes an administrative act from quasi-judicial act is, in the case of quasi-judicial functions under the relevant law the statutory authority is required to act judicially. In other words, where law requires that an authority before arriving at decision must make an enquiry, such a requirement of law makes the authority a quasi-judicial authority. "

Reading of paragraph-27 of the said pronouncement makes clear the distinction between an admininstrative act and a quasi-judicial act. The latter is a case, where law requires that an authority before arriving at a decision must make an enquiry. Such a requirement of law makes the authority a quasi-judicial authority. A quasi-judicial decision is, therefore, an administrative decision which is subject to some measure of judicial procedure and is required to be discharged according to the Rules. Whereas the authority which acts administratively is dictated by a policy and expediency.

The Registrar under Section 4-B of the Act, 1860 not only looks to the records summoned by him but can also put the party who may be prejudicially affected to notice. On an objection filed by such party, he is required to make a final determination. Similarly, in a case of opposition of any party regarding validity of membership of a person, the Registrar may look to the record and decide the dispute. When the power conferred upon the Registrar to make enquiry under Section 4-B of the Act, 1860 is looked with the statement of objects and reasons of its insertion, there cannot be a doubt that the Registrar at his ends can decide as to the correctness of a list of members of General body of the Society in order to avoid all such situation which may create future disputes. In other words, to uphold the object of the Amending Act to minimise the litigation, the enquiry or examination is to be done by the Registrar which would necessarily require adjudication on the dispute raised or arisen before it.

Applying the above tests, there is no room for doubt that the nature of power of the Assistant Registrar under Section 4-B of the Act, 1860 is necessarily in the nature of quasi-judicial power, circumscribed by the limitations provided in the said provisions.

It is furthermore a well-settled principle of law that a Statutory Authority must exercise its jurisdiction within the four corners of the Statute. Any action taken which is not within the domain of the State Authority would be illegal and without jurisdiction (Ref. V.K. Ashokan v. Assistant Excise Commissioner & Ors. (2009) 14 SCC 85).

In so far as the scope of enquiry which can be made by the Assistant Registrar under Section 4-B of the Act, 1860 is concerned, as noted above, he can examine the correctness of the list of membership by asking the office-bearers or person concerned to provide the original registers etc. which would prove the said fact. He can also summon the record in case of any change reported to it by induction, removal etc. But he cannot examine witnesses or record any evidence. The dispute before the Registrar can only be decided within the four corners of the said provision i.e. on the basis of records placed before it, by the person whose rights may be prejudicially affected or the contending parties. The intricate questions or complicated issues which would require leading of evidence, summoning of witnesses, examination and cross-examination thereof are not within the domain of the Assistant Registrar. Such a dispute would thus be beyond the scope of his jurisdiction and would have to be referred to the Competent Authority or the Civil Court.

In the instant case, looking to the plea taken by Sri T.P. Singh and the prayer made in the application under Section 4 of the Act, 1860, it is evident that the petitioner/applicant seeks to challenge the resolution of the Executive Committee of the Society on the grounds that it was the result of the controversy hatched against him, fourteen elected members had voted against the resolution and the resolution was passed by the nominated members including only one elected member; the petitioner/applicant was not provided opportunity of hearing before decision of removal of his membership was taken; the nominating members did not have right to vote; and that the resolution dated 17.1.2016 was passed by thirty (30) nominated members which cannot be treated to have been passed by majority.

On the above noted grounds, the prayers made in the application are that:-

(1) The decision of the Executive Committee be declared null and void or having been passed by minority, treating the membership of thirty (30) nominated members as null and void.

(2) The petitioner/applicant was not provided opportunity of hearing by the Executive Committee, inasmuch as, the applicant was not provided opportunity to cross-examine those members who were having personal biases and grudges against him on account of filing of an election petition against them. His membership was removed in order to frustate his election petition.

(3) The voting process in the meeting of Executive Committee was faulty being in contravention of Bye-law and the resolution having been passed by nominated members only and being undemocratic.

(4) The Executive Committee was not empowered to remove membership of the petitioner/applicant who was member of the General body of the Society.

All the grounds for seeking the prayers noted above make it evident that the petitioner/applicant had challenged the merits of the resolution of the Executive Committee of the Society. There was no challenge regarding the meeting of the Executive Committee having been convened on the said date or any other objection regarding the said meeting being validly convened which would require a summary enquiry to be made by the Registrar. The questions which are sought to be raised by the petitioner/applicant are necessarily beyond the scope of jurisidiction of the Assistant Registrar under Section 4-B of the Act, 1860 and can only be adjudicated in a Civil suit.

Even otherwise, the contention of Sri G.K. Singh learned Senior Advocate that the Assistant Registrar did not decide the application/objection of the petitioner rather he had refrained himself from adjudicating the same on the ground of the writ petition being pending, is incorrect. A careful reading of the order dated 26.8.2017 passed by the Assistant Registrar (brought on record) does indicate that after examining the prayer of the petitioner/applicant, he had categorically observed that the prayer for setting aside the resolution of the Executive Committee made therein was beyond the scope of his jurisdiction under Section 4-B of the Act, 1860. The observation in the last paragraph of the said order regarding pendency of the present petition could not be construed to mean that the issue was not addressed/adjudicated. In any case, having reached at a conclusion that the prayers made in the application under Section 4 of the Act, 1860 of the petitioner/applicant were not within the scope of enquiry which can be made by the Assistant Registrar under Section 4-B of the Act, 1860, the prayer made in the present petition for issuance of mandamus is liable to be rejected.

In so far as other matters/applications under Section 12-D and Section 24 of the Act,1860 are concerned, no prayer, in that regard, was either pressed nor any arguments have been extended. However in the opinion of the Court, it is incumbent upon the Assistant Registrar to adjudicate all the pending matters, in accordance with law.

Subject to the above observations and directions, both the connected writ petitions are being disposed of.

(Sunita Agarwal, J.)

Order Date :- 20.11.2017

Jyotsana