ORDER
Arun Tandon, J.
1. Order dated 5th August, 2004 was wrongly passed in the present writ petition inasmuch as the order under challenge is a notice issued by the Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act and, therefore, the records of the Regional Level Committee as directed under the order dated 5.8.2004 are not required to be submitted.
2. I have heard Sri A.K. Mishra on behalf of the petitioner, Sri R. K. Ojha on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 to 8 and 10 to 18 and learned standing counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
3. Shiksha Samiti Tilaura, Gorakhpur is a society duly registered under the Societies Registration Act. Sri Ashtabhuja Prasad Tripathi claims himself to be the Secretary of the said society.
4. According to the petitioner elections for constituting the office bearers of the society were held under Section 25 (2) of the Societies Registration Act by the Assistant Registrar. The result of the elections was declared on 16th November, 2003 in which Sri Ashtabhuja Prasad has been elected as Secretary of the society. It is further stated that the list of the office bearers has been registered under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act. It is further stated that the signatures of the elected Manager have also been attested by the Regional Joint Director of Education.
5. However, certain members of the general body of the society, not being satisfied with the aforesaid elections, have raised a dispute by filing a reference under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act. The said reference is alleged to have been signed by the 15 members of the general body. It is not in dispute between the parties that the total membership of the said society is only 45 members. Under Section 25 (1) of the Act a reference can be maintained only if it is presented by 1/4 of the total members of the general body. Admittedly, 1 /4 of 45 members would be 12 members. In such circumstances, if the reference has been signed by the 12 members of the general body, it is valid reference and required to be adjudicated upon by the prescribed authority.
6. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that the reference said to have been signed by 15 members bears forged signatures of some members and includes signatures of three persons who are not even primary member of the general body. The petitioner in support of the said contention has relied upon the affidavit filed by the some members, who alleged to have signed the reference. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is contended by the petitioner that the reference having not been made by valid 1/4 of the member, the Assistant Registrar has no jurisdiction to entertain the reference.
7. On behalf of the respondent it is contended that as the reference has been signed by 15 valid members of the general body, the dispute of genuineness of signatures cannot be a subject-matter of adjudication in a writ proceeding.
8. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the writ petition.
9. The issue as to whether the reference has been signed by the requisite number of valid members of the general body or not, is purely a question of fact and it is for the prescribed authority to decide as to whether the reference made under Section 25 (1) of the Act has been duly signed by the members of the general body or not.
10. In view of the aforesaid, it would be appropriate that the petitioner may file his detailed objections before the Prescribed Authority supported by documents as may be advised. The Prescribed Authority shall consider the objections so raised, after affording opportunity of hearing to the persons who have signed the reference and decide the reference thereafter in accordance with law.
11. The aforesaid exercise may be undertaken by the Prescribed Authority within one month from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him.
12. With the above observations, writ petition stands disposed of.
