1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 20655 of 2024 Sitaram Rastogi and another …..Petitioner(s) Versus State of UP and 6 others …..Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anjali, J.P. Singh, Pramod Kumar Singh, Santosh Kr. Singh Paliwal Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Prabhakar Awasthi, Ram Pravesh Pandey, Vashishtha Dhar Shukla WITH WRIT - C No. - 11375 of 2024 Sitaram Rastogi …..Petitioner(s) Versus State of UP and 2 others …..Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arvind Kumar Rai, J.P. Singh, Santosh Kr. Singh Paliwal, Vimal Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. RESERVED ON :- 21.01.2026 DELIVERED ON :- 20.04.2026 HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J. 1. The aforementioned both the writ petitions are related to a society namely, Shri Harihar Sanskrit Pathshala, Bazaar Gosain, Azamgarh and fate of Writ-C No. 11375 of 2024 depends on the decision of Writ-C No. 2 20655 of 2024, therefore, both the writ petitions are being decided by a common judgment. 2. Heard Shri J.P. Singh and Shri Santosh Kumar Singh Paliwal, learned counsels for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents, Shri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri R.P. Pandey, learned counsel for Respondent No's. 6 & 7 and Shri V.K. Ojha, learned Advocate holding brief of Ms. Anjali Singh, learned counsel for the intervener. 3. The captioned Writ-C No. 11375 of 2024 has been filed by the petitioner inter alia, praying therein for the following relief(s):- i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.3 to hold the election of the Managing Committee of the Sri Harihar Sanskrit Pathshala ‘Bazar Gosai, Azamgarh, within stipulated time as fixed by this Hon’ble Court in compliance of the order dated 02.12.2023 passed by the Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh (Respondent No. 2) passed under Section-25(2) of Society Registration Act, 1860 from the valid voter list as determined by Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh.” 4. The captioned Writ-C No. 20655 of 2024 has been filed by the petitioners inter alia, praying therein for the following relief(s):- “(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order impugned dated 30.05.2024 passed by the Respondent No. 2/3 (copy of impugned order is enclosed as Annexure No.1 to this petition). (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 2/3 to hold elections in accordance with order dated 02.12.2023 and the undertaking given before this Court on 17.05.2024 within the time to be specified by the Hon’ble Court;” 5. The facts of the case, in brief, are that Shri Harihar Sanskrit Pathshala, Bazar Gosain, Azamgarh (hereinafter refered to as ‘the Society’) is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is run under its approved By-Laws. On November 10, 2010, registration of the Society was renewed on the application dated November 10, 2010 submitted by the then Manager, Shri Ramakar Dubey. Thereafter, a list of office bearers of the Committee of Management of the Society for 2010-11 and list of members of general body of the Society for 2010-11 3 were filed. As per By-Laws of the Society, term of its Committee of Management is one year. The elections of the Committee of Managment of the Society took place on October 01, 2013 wherein, Shri Ramakar Dubey was elected as Manager and Petitioner No. 1 i.e. Mr. Sitaram Rastogi was elected as Deputy Manager. List of office bearers of the Committee of Management of the Society was filed in the office of the Assistant Registrar and it was duly registered. Shri Ramakar Dubey i.e. Manager of the Society died on November 17, 2013 and therefore, the casual vacancy in the office of Manager was filled in by electing Petitioner No. 1 as Manager and a revised list of office bearers of the Committee of Management of the Society was filed in the office of the Assistant Registrar. The term of the Committee of Management of the Society elected in the elections held on October 01, 2013 came to an end on October 01, 2014. Thereafter, various election proceedings were filed in the office of the Assistant Registrar but none of the elections were recognized and ultimately, in the year 2022, rival sets of elections i.e. one election submitted by Petitioner No. 1, another election submitted by Shri Sadanand Tiwari and third election submitted by Shri Ram Naval Pandey, were placed before the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Azamgarh. The aforesaid three elections were considered by the Assistant Registrar and ultimately, he passed an order on June 18, 2022 wherein he recorded a finding that after elections dated October 01, 2013, whose term expired on October 01, 2014, no valid election of the Committee of Management of the Society took place, therefore, the Committee of Management of the Society had become time barred and accordingly, he directed for elections of the Committee of Management of the Society under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and in furtherance thereof, declared a tentative list of 14 members of the general body of the Society and invited objections from all the persons concerned. 6. 6. Against the tentative list of members of general body of the Society declared by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Azamgarh 4 Division, Azamgarh vide his order dated June 18, 2022, Respondent No. 7 i.e. Shri Giresh Kumar Pandey filed an application on July 11, 2022 and Respondent No. 6 i.e. Shri Ved Prakash Pandey along with Shri Sharad Vrat Pandey, Shri Ram Vilas, Shri Abhay Shukla, Shri Vijay Narayan, Shri Ravikant and Shri Sudhakar Pandey filed an application on July 12, 2022. In both the aforesaid applications dated July 11, 2022 & July 12, 2022, a common case was placed before the Assistant Registrar that forty Special Members (Vishisht Sadasya) were inducted in the general body of the Society vide a resolution passed by the Committee of Management of the Society on October 28, 2013 and the induction of said forty members was duly communicated by the then Manager of the Society i.e. by Shri Ramakar Dubey, therefore, the names of said forty persons may also be included in the list of members of general body of the Society for the purposes of elections to be held under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Along with the aforesaid objections, Shri Sadanand Tiwari and Petitioner No. 1 i.e. Shri Sitaram Rastogi also filed their objections. 7. The Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh issued notice to Respondent No. 6, Petitioner No. 1 and Shri Sadanand Tiwari for hearing on the objections. After hearing on the objections, the Assistant Registrar passed a detailed order on December 02, 2023 whereby, list of eleven members of the general body of the Society was finalized and election officer was appointed for holding elections of the Committee of Management of the Society from the said list. 8. The Respondent No. 7 filed an application on December 07, 2023 before the Assistant Registrar which was received in his office on December 08, 2023 wherein, he submitted that he had filed objections on July 11, 2022 against the tentative list of the members of the general body issued vide order dated June 18, 2022 but he was not issued notice for hearing and without hearing him, the list of members of the general body has been finalized vide order dated December 02, 2023 , therefore, 5 the said order is liable to be recalled, as the same is hit by the violation of the principles of natural justice. The Respondent No. 7 also submitted an application on December 11, 2023 before the Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh for a direction to the Assistant Registrar to hear him and thereafter, finalize the list of members of the general body of the Society. The Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh on December 11, 2023 directed the Assistant Registrar to conduct an enquiry in the matter and submit a report. 9. Since, in spite of finalization of the list of members of the general body of the Society vide order dated December 02, 2023, elections of the Committee of Management of the Society did not take place, the Petitioner No. 1 filed a writ petition bearing Writ-C No. 11375 of 2024 with a prayer that the authorities may be directed to hold elections of the Committee of Management of the Society in terms of the order dated December 02, 2023 within a fixed timeframe. This Court passed an order on 08.04.2024 in Writ-C No. 11375 of 2024 whereby, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State was directed to take categorical instructions as to why elections pursuant to order dated December 02, 2023 have not taken place. The Writ-C No. 11375 of 2024 came up before the Court on May 08, 2024 and since the Assistant Registrar in the instructions provided to learned Standing Counsel did not specify the time within which elections shall be completed, this Court directed learned Standing Counsel to take instructions as to within what time elections would be completed. On May 17, 2024, Shri Abhishek Tripathi, Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh appeared before the Court and submitted that, in all probability, he will complete the elections pursuant to order dated December 02, 2023, by July 15, 2024. Accordingly, the Court, on May 17, 2024, passed the order which is delineated as under:- “1. In compliance of this Court’s order dated May 08, 2024, Sri Abhishek Tripathi, Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh has appeared before this Court and has stated that in all probability, he will complete the elections pursuant to order dated December 02, 2023 by 15.07.2024. 6 2. Accordingly, list this matter on 18.07.2024. 3. It is made open for the Assistant Registrar that if due to some unavoidable circumstances, he is unable to complete process of election by 15.07.2024, he may move application for further extension of time.” 10. Thereafter, the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies, and Chits, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh has passed an order on May 30, 2024, whereby, on the application given by Respondent No. 7, he has reviewed his earlier order dated December 2, 2023, and has passed a fresh detailed order whereby he has declared a final list of 51 members of the society for the purposes of elections to be held under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The aforesaid order dated May 30, 2024, has been challenged by the petitioners in Writ-C No. 20655 of 2024, and this Court, on June 21, 2024, passed an interim order whereby the effect and operation of the order dated May 30, 2024, has been kept in abeyance. It has also been informed that, pursuant to the order dated May 30, 2024, elections of the Committee of Management of the society have taken place, but those elections have not been given effect to in view of the aforesaid interim order dated June 21, 2024. The aforesaid interim order dated June 21, 2024 was challenged by Respondent No's. 6 and 7, i.e. Mr. Ved Prakash Pandey and Mr. Giresh Kumar Pandey, by filing Special Appeal No. 634 of 2024 and in the said Special Appeal, the Division Bench of this Court has passed the following order:- “1. Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri J.P. Singh, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Sri Ankit Gaur, learned counsel for State-Respondents. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated June 21, 2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ C No. 20655 of 2024. The writ petition was filed aggrieved of the action of the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh, whereby a list of members of the Society in question was finalized on 30.05.2024 and elections were held. 3. The primary submission made is that in the Writ C No. 11375 of 2024 on 17.08.2024, the Assistant Registrar appeared before the Court and made certain submissions and his action dated 30.05.2024 was in teeth of his undertakings/submissions made before the Court on May 17, 2024. 4. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties found that the order dated 30.05.2024 was in teeth of the order dated May 17, 2024 passed in Writ C No. 11375 of 2024 and consequently, stayed the action pursuant to the order dated 30.05.2024. 7 5. In the present appeal, submissions have been made seeking to interpret the order dated May 17, 2024 and/or what transpired before the Court on May 17, 2024 in Writ C No. 11375 of 2024. 6. In the firm opinion of this Court, as the parties are seeking to interpret the order dated May 17, 2024 passed in Writ C No. 11375 of 2024 and as to what led to passing of the said order, it would be appropriate that the Writ C No. 20655 of 2024 and Writ C No. 11375 of 2024 are heard by the learned Singe Judge, who had passed the order dated May 17, 2024. 7. Both the learned counsel for the parties have no objection to the said aspect of the matter. 8. Consequently, the present appeal is disposed of. 9. List Writ C No. 20655 of 2024 and Writ C No. 11375 of 2024 on 09.08.2024 before the Bench, which has passed the order dated May 17, 2024 in Writ C No. 11375 of 2024, after seeking appropriate nomination.” 11. In the aforesaid circumstances, both the writ petitions, i.e. Writ-C No. 11375 of 2024 and Writ-C No. 20655 of 2024 have come up before this Court and arguments of parties' counsels have been heard. 12. Shri J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, has invited attention of this Court towards the array of the parties in Special Appeal No. 634 of 2024 and submits that the interim order dated 21 June 2024, passed in Writ-C No. 20655 of 2024, had been challenged in the Special Appeal by Mr. Ved Prakash Pandey and Mr. Giresh Kumar Pandey, and therefore, it is apparent that both are connected with each other and are agitating the claim of alleged forty members of the general body of the Society. He further submits that against the tentative list of the members of the general body declared vide order dated June 18, 2022, Mr. Ved Prakash Pandey and Shri Giresh Kumar Pandey, though filed separate applications on July 12, 2022 and July 11, 2022 respectively but their claim was one and the same and the said claim of membership of the forty persons had been considered in it’s threadbare by the Assistant Registrar in its order dated December 02, 2023, therefore, even if Mr. Giresh Kumar Pandey was not issued notice for personal hearing, that does not make any difference on the merits of the case, as Mr. Ved Prakash Pandey was heard in detail and each and every aspect of his claim had been considered and decided by the Assistant Registrar. 8 13. Shri J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently argued that it is well-settled, through a catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of this Hon'ble Court, that any authority exercising its power under a statute does not have the power to review its decision unless the statute expressly so provides. He further submits that once the Assistant Registrar passed an order on December 02, 2023 after considering each and every aspect of the matter on merits and finalized the list of 11 members of the Society, there was no occasion for him to review his order dated December 02, 2023 and to pass a fresh order dated May 30, 2024 as no provision under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 gives power to the Assistant Registrar to review his decision. It has been vehemently argued that the order dated May 30, 2024 is an order without jurisdiction and therefore, is nullity in the eyes of law and any consequential action taken pursuant to order dated May 30, 2024 cannot be allowed to sustain. 14. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that from a bare perusal of the order dated December 02, 2023, it clearly comes out that the claim of forty persons for membership of the general body of the Society (which was a common claim raised by Mr. Ved Prakash Pandey and Mr. Giresh Kumar Pandey before the Assistant Registrar) had been considered by the Assistant Registrar and has been rejected vide a detailed order dated December 02, 2023. The Assistant Registrar in its order dated December 02, 2023 had recorded a categorical finding that the said forty persons are claiming membership under the alleged resolution of the Committee of Management of the Society dated October 28, 2013 but neither they were invited to attend any meeting of the Society, nor they ever attended any meeting since year 2013 till the year 2022, and further, the said 40 members, at no point of time, did ever raise their voice and did not submit any application to any authority in respect of their rights to attend the meetings and straight away, through applications dated July 11, 2023 and July 12, 2023, they for the first time raised their claim before the Assistant Registrar, which in fact, 9 categorically demonstrates that they are claiming membership on the basis of certain forged papers. It has further been argued that once the claim of forty persons regarding their membership in the general body of the Society had been considered and decided on merits, then the said decision cannot be reviewed merely for the reason that one person, i.e. Mr. Giresh Kumar Pandey was not afforded opportunity of hearing by the Assistant Registrar. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the order dated May 30, 2024 apparently is without jurisdiction as the Assistant Registrar, Firm, Society and Chits, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh, has reviewed his order dated December 02, 2023, though, under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, he does not have the power to do so. It has further been argued that though procedural review of an order passed by a statutory authority is permissible but that power can only be exercised if a party to the proceedings has not been heard at all and his case has not been considered and decided on merits, whereas, from the facts of the present case, it is apparent that Respondent No. 6 i.e. Mr. Ved Prakash Pandey and Respondent No. 7 i.e. Mr. Giresh Kumar Pandey raised identical claims based on identical documents before the Assistant Registrar and Mr. Ved Prakash Pandey was issued notice and heard in detail, and thereafter, a detailed and well-reasoned order dated December 02, 2023 had been passed wherein the claim of membership of forty persons allegedly inducted vide resolution of the Committee of Management of the Society dated October 28, 2013 had been considered in its threadbare and by recording findings on merits, the Assistant Registrar rejected their claim of membership, therefore, the present case does not fall within the ambit of procedural review, and in fact, in the garb of procedural review, the Assistant Registrar has overturned the findings recorded on the merits in the order dated December 02, 2023 and has passed order for including the names of forty persons in the final list of the general body of the Society. 10 16. It has also been vehemently argued that there cannot be any better example of misuse of the concept of procedural review than the present case where two parties raised identical claim before the Assistant Registrar and one was called for personal hearing but another was not, and the order was passed on their claim on merits, but later on, only for the reason that one person was not called for hearing, in the garb of procedural review, the order dated December 02, 2023 has been reviewed and again an order on merits has been passed on May 30, 2024. 17. Shri J.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that in the garb of review or procedural review of an order, the decision taken on merits cannot be reviewed unless it is shown that had the opportunity of hearing been given to a party before passing of the order, he would have placed such materials on the basis of which the findings recorded in the order would not have been arrived at but in the present case, only on a small infirmity in passing the order dated December 02, 2023 that Mr. Giresh Kumar Pandey was not provided opportunity of personal hearing, the findings recorded on the merits of the claim of membership of 40 members have been overturned, which is not permissible in the garb of either review or procedural review. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that on filing the application by Mr. Giresh Kumar Pandey, the Petitioner No. 1 filed objections on December 29, 2023, categorically mentioning therein that the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh, does not have power to review his decision dated December 02, 2023 but the said objections have not been considered at all by the authority concerned while passing the order dated May 30, 2024. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dr. (Smt.) Kuntesh Gupta Vs. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur (U.P.) & Others, (1987) 4 SCC 525; Kalabharati Advertising 11 Vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania & Others, (2010) 9 SCC 437; The State of West Bengal & Others Vs. Kamal Sengupta & Another, JT 2008 (8) SC 317; the judgment dated 21.01.2020 in the case of Kalapatru Power Transmission Ltd., Gandhinagar Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. Mumbai, 2020 LawSuit (Bom.) 92; and the judgment of this Court dated 28.02.2011 rendered in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 10052 of 2011, Khachchan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & others; to buttress his arguments that the impugned order dated May 30, 2024 is without jurisdiction, as the Assistant Registrar does not have power under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 to review his decision, and further, the case in hand does not fall within the ambit of procedural review of an order passed by a statutory authority. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioners has thus concluded his arguments and has submitted that the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are liable to be allowed and the impugned order dated May 30, 2024 along with the consequential elections, if any, are liable to be quashed and set aside. 20. Shri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent No's. 6 & 7, has argued that the Assistant Registrar, Firm, Societies & Chits, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh, passed an order on June 18, 2022, whereby elections of the Committee of Management of the Society had been declared time-barred and in exercise of power under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, a decision was taken to conduct elections of the Committee of Management of the Society and in furtherance thereof, a tentative list of 14 members of the general body of the Society was declared. The Respondent No. 7, Shri Giresh Kumar Pandey, submitted his objections in the form of an application dated July 11, 2022 before the Assistant Registrar but without providing him an opportunity of hearing, the Assistant Registrar passed an order on December 02, 2023 whereby the list of 11 members of the general body of the Society was finalized. It has further been argued that it is apparent from the face of the order dated December 02, 12 2023 that it can not sustain in the eyes of law as it has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice for the reason that before passing the said order, Respondent No. 7 was not afforded opportunity of hearing. 21. It has been argued on behalf of Respondent No's. 6 & 7 that once it is clear from a bare perusal of the order dated December 02, 2023 that Respondent No. 7 had filed objections to the tentative list of members issued vide order dated June 18, 2022 and raised a claim that 40 persons, including him and Mr. Ved Prakash Pandey, were inducted as members of the general body of the Society vide resolution of the Committee of Management of the Society dated October 28, 2013, then it was obligatory on the Assistant Registrar to provide an opportunity of hearing to Respondent No. 7, before finalizing the list of members of the general body of the Society whereas, it is apparent from the face of order dated June 18, 2022 that no such opportunity of hearing was afforded to Respondent No. 7 before passing the said order. 22. Shri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned Senior Advocate for Respondent No's. 6 & 7, has argued that Respondent No's. 6 & 7 and thirty-eight other persons i.e. a total of 40 persons, were inducted as special members (विशिष्ट सदस्य) of the Society vide resolution dated October 28, 2013 passed by the Committee of Management of the Society and the then Manager of the Society, Late Ramakar Dubey, informed the said induction of members to the Assistant Registrar vide application dated November 07, 2023, then there could not have been any occasion for the Assistant Registrar to reject the claim of 40 persons in respect of their members, as such the order dated June 18, 2022 on its face is unsustainable. It has been argued that, no doubt, the Assistant Registrar under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 does not have any power to review his decision but if there is any procedural infirmity in the order, then it can be reviewed under the concept of procedural review. It has further been argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide its various 13 decisions, had categorically propounded the law that in the cases where a quasi-judicial authority comes to the conclusion that the order passed by him suffers from procedural defect and would have been different had that defect not existed, it can review its order. 23. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent No's. 6 & 7 has vehemently argued that it is apparent on the face of order dated December 02, 2023 that Respondent No. 7 had filed objections in the form of an application dated July 11, 2022 against the tentative list of members declared vide order dated June 18, 2022 but he was not afforded opportunity of hearing before passing the order dated December 02, 2023, therefore, the Assistant Registrar, on an application moved by Respondent No. 7, has reviewed his order dated December 02, 2023 by passing a fresh order dated 30 May 2024 based on the principle of procedural review, as such the impugned order dated May 30, 2024 does not suffer from either any infirmity or illegality. 24. It has been submitted on behalf of Respondent No's. 6 & 7 that after passing of the order dated December 02, 2023, Respondent No. 7 filed an application before the Assistant Registrar praying for a review of the order and also filed an application before the Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh for a direction to the Assistant Registrar to look into the entire matter again after providing opportunity of hearing to Respondent No. 7 and while the matter of review was pending before the Assistant Registrar, Petitioner No. 1 filed Writ-C No. 11375 of 2024, wherein this Court directed the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the state to take instructions as to why elections have not been completed in terms of the order dated December 02, 2023 and the Assistant Registrar provided instructions to learned Standing Counsel that after completion of the review proceedings, he would complete the elections and thereafter the order dated May 30, 2024 has been passed, and the elections of the Committee of Management of the Society have been conducted. It has further been submitted that once the order dated December 02, 2023 has been reviewed by passing an order dated May 14 30, 2024 and the elections of the Committee of Management of the Society have been conducted, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere in the matter. 25. It has been pointed out by learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent No's. 6 & 7 that Respondent No's. 6 & 7 along with 38 other persons i.e. a total of 40 persons were inducted as members by the Committee of Management of the Society vide resolution dated October 28, 2013 and it is admitted by Petitioner No. 1 in the orders passed by the Assistant Registrar that the original registers of the proceedings of the Committee of Management of the Society have been taken away by the then Principal of the college, therefore, there was no occasion for the Assistant Registrar to discard the claim of the 40 persons in respect of their membership, which was granted to them vide resolution dated October 28, 2013. 26. Shri Prabhakar Awasti, learned Senior Advocate, has thus concluded his arguments by submitting that the order dated 30 May 2024 has been passed by the Assistant Registrar applying the principle of procedural review, therefore, there is neither any illegality nor infirmity in the said order, accordingly, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are liable to be dismissed by this Court. 27. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent No's. 6 & 7, to buttress his arguments, has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of M/S Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd. Vs. Phool Chand, 2018 (16) SCC 567; and the judgment and order dated 08.01.2019 passed by this Court in Writ-C No. 375 of 2019, Nagar Palika Parishad, Disrict – Ghazipur Vs. Union of India & 3 others. 28. Sri V. K. Ojha, learned Advocate holding brief of Ms. Anjali Singh, learned counsel for the intervener, has argued that Mr. Sadanand Tiwari had already challenged the order dated June 18, 2023 by filing Writ-C No. 22464 of 2022, which is pending before this Court, therefore, unless 15 the said writ petition is decided, this court may not permit any election of the Committee of Management of the Society. 29. I have heard learned counsels appearing for the parties including learned counsel for the intervener and have perused the documents available in the record of the writ petitions placed before this Court. 30. It is apparent that Respondent No's. 6 & 7 in Writ-C No. 20655 of 2024 have not challenged the order dated June 18, 2022 whereby the elections of the Committee of Management of the society had been declared time-barred and tentative list of 14 members of the general body of the society was published and objections were invited except that the order dated June 18, 2022 has been challenged by the intervener, Mr. Sadanand Tiwari, by filing a separate Writ-C No. 22464 of 2022, wherein, as of now, no interim order has been passed by this Court. Thus, it is manifest that this Court, while deciding the Writ-C No.11375 of 2024 and Writ-C No. 20655 of 2024, is to adjudicate the validity of the proceedings carried out by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh, after June 18, 2022. 31. The Assistant Registrar after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and after affording opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties, had passed an order on June 18, 2022, whereby elections of the Committee of Management of the Society had been declared as time-barred and further, the Assistant Registrar, in exercise of his power under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, proceeded to hold elections of the Committee of Management of the Society, and in that process, a tentative list of 14 members of the general body of the Society was declared and objections against the said tentative list were invited. 32. The objections against the aforesaid tentative list of members of the Society, declared vide order dated June 18, 2022, were filed by Petitioner No. 1 i.e. Mr. Sitaram Rastogi, Mr. Sadanand Tiwari, Respondent No. 6 i.e. Mr. Ved Prakash Pandey and Respondent No. 7 16 i.e. Mr. Giresh Kumar Pandey, and also by other persons. The Respondent No. 7 i.e. Mr. Giresh Kumar Pandey filed his objections through an application dated July 11, 2022 and Respondent No. 6 i.e. Mr. Ved Prakash Pandey along with Mr. Sharad Vrat Pandey, Mr. Ram Vilas, Mr. Abhay Shukla, Mr. Vijay Narayan Pandey, Mr. Ravikant, and Mr. Sudhakar Pandey filed their objections vide application dated July 12, 2022. It is of utmost importance to take note of the fact that objections raised by Mr. Giresh Kumar Pandey through his application dated July 11, 2022 and the objections raised by Mr. Ved Prakash Pandey through his application dated July 12, 2022 were one and the same, and their claim was that 40 persons, including them, have been inducted as special members (Vishishta Sadasya) of the general body of the Society vide resolution dated October 28, 2013 passed by the Committee of Management of the Society, therefore, the names of said 40 persons must be included in the list of members of the general body of the Society to be used in the elections to be held under the order dated June 18, 2022. It is also noteworthy that Respondent No's. 6 & 7 in their objections claimed that they along with 38 other persons were inducted as members of the general body of the Society vide resolution dated October 28, 2013 passed by the Committee of Management of the Society whose manager was Mr. Ramakar Dubey and he duly informed the said induction of the members to the office of the Assistant Registrar vide his letter dated November 07, 2013. 33. It is also of the utmost importance for this Court to consider that Mr. Giresh Kumar Pandey i.e. Respondent No. 7 and Mr. Ved Prakash Pandey i.e. Respondent No. 6, from the very beginning, have raised one and the same claim in respect of membership of the 40 persons, and that fact also gets fortified through subsequent actions, as they have collectively challenged the order dated June 21, 2024, passed by this Court in Writ-C No. 20655 of 2024, by filing Special Appeal No. 634 of 2024. Thus, from the conduct of Respondent No's. 6 and 7, by filing common objections against the tentative list before the Assistant 17 Registrar and thereafter, collectively contesting the case before this Court in Special Appeal No. 634 of 2024, it is crystal clear that both have raised an absolutely common issue of the validity of the membership of 40 persons allegedly inducted vide resolution dated October 28, 2013. The Court finds that pursuant to the order dated June 18, 2022, the Respondent No's. 6 & 7 filed two separate applications dated July 12, 2022 and July 11, 2022 respectively, whereby they raised common objections and issues in respect of the claim of 40 persons regarding their membership of the general body of the Society. The Assistant Registrar, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh, while hearing the objections, did not issue notice for personal hearing to Respondent No. 7 but notice to Respondent No. 6 for personal hearing was issued and he was heard. The Assistant Registrar, in its order dated December 2, 2023, had considered the entire objections raised in respect of the alleged membership of 40 persons, including the membership of Respondent No's. 6 & 7, granted by the alleged resolution dated October 28, 2013, and thereafter, after considering the matter in its entirety, recorded a categorical finding that the claim of membership of 40 persons is not tenable in the eyes of law. For ready reference, the relevant extracts of the order passed by the Assistant Registrar on December 2, 2023, are reproduced as under:- “श्री विरे कु मार पाण्डेय द्वारा सविमति के व्यस्थापक/प्रबन्धक के रूप में प्राथ!ना पत्र विदनांक 11.07.2022 एं उक्त के साथ संलग्न कर काया!लय को प्रस्ु प्राथ!ना पत्र विदनांक 07.07.2022 समस् संलग्नकों सवि, छायाप्रति में प्रस्ु करे ,ुए विनम्नलिललि0 सूची के अनुसार सविमति के साधारण सभा का वितिधमान्य सदस्य ,ोने, पू! अध्यक्ष, उपाध्यक्ष  प्रबन्धक आविद द्वारा विनवि, वि, में अपने अतिधकार का दूरूपयो करे ,ुए सविमति विरोधी तिवितिधयों में संलिलप्त ,ोने के कारण साधारण सभा के ,म सदस्यण को सविमति के बैठकों की सूचना न विदये जाने, इसलिलए पू! में आ,ू बैठकों में सम्मिम्मलिल ,ोने से ,म सदस्यण के ंतिच ,ोे र,ने, ,मारे अतिधकारों का जानबूझकर ,नन विकये जाने का कथन करे ,ुए एं साधारण सभा के सदस्य की सूची के रूप में 40 व्यविक्तयों की सूची प्राथ!ना पत्र पर टंविक करे ,ुए सविमतिवि, में आश्यक काय!ा,ी विकये जाने ,ेु अनुरोध विकया या। श्री ेद प्रका, श्री रदव्र पाण्डेय, श्री रामविला, श्री अभय ुक्ल, श्री विजय नारायण, श्री रविकान्, श्री सुधाकर पाण्डेय के संयुक्त ,स्ाक्षरों से सविमति के साधारण सभा के सदस्य के रूप में आपलिF विदनांक 12.07.2022 प्रस्ु करे ,ुए काया!लय आदे विदनांक 18.06.2022 द्वारा सलग्न सूची के 14 सदस्य एं ,म सभी साधारण सभा के 40 सदस्यों के वितिधमान्य सदस्य ,ोने, सविमति के पू! अध्यक्ष, उपाध्यक्ष, प्रबन्धक आविद द्वारा विनवि, वि, में अपने अतिधकारों का दूरुपयो करे ,ुए 18 सविमति विरोधी तिवितिधयों में सम्मिम्मलिल ,ोने के कारण साधारण सभा के ,म सभी सदस्यों को बैठक के सन्दभ! में सूचना न विदये जाने, साधारण सभा की सूची में ,म 40 सदस्यों का नाम भी प्रस्ु न विकये जाने, इसलिलए पू! में आ,ू बैठकों में साधारण सभा के ,म सदस्यण के ंतिच ,ोे र,ने, जानबूझकर ,मारे अतिधकारों का ,नन विकये जाने का कथन करे ,ुए एं साधारण सभा सूची के रूप में 40 व्यविक्तयों का नाम  विरण प्राथ!ना पत्र पर टंविक करे ,ुए ,म सभी 40 सदस्यीय साधारण सभा की सूची के साथ ,ी आदे विदनांक 18.06.2022 द्वारा विन! 14 सदस्यीय साधारण सभा के सदस्य अथा!् कु ल 54 सदस्यीय साधारण सभा के सदस्यों के आधार पर अविIम काय!ा,ी विकये जाने ,ेु अनुरोध विकया या ,ै। आपलिF विदनांक 12.07.2022 के साथ संलग्न कर आदे विदनाक 18. 06.2022 छायाप्रति, नोटरी पथ पत्र श्री अभय ुक्ल, श्री विजय नरायन, श्री रविकान्, श्री रदव्र पाण्डेय, श्री रामविलास, श्री सुधाकर पाण्डेय, श्री ेदप्रका प्रस्ु ,ै। संलग्न पथ पत्रों के पथका!ओं द्वारा सविमति का वितिधमान्य सदस्य ,ोने, सविमति में कोई प्रबन्धकीय विाद न ,ोने, कोई प्रबन्धकीय विाद विकसी मा० न्यायालय में लम्मिम्ब न ,ोने, के न्द्र सरकार / राज्य सरकार / सांसद/विधायक विनतिध से कोई विFीय स,ाया / अनुदान प्राप्त न ,ोने, कोई थ्य ोपन न विकये जाने, सविमति को काली सूची में न र0े जाने, सविमति के अपने उद्देश्यों के अनुरूप काय! विकये जाने, सविमति के परिरसम्पलिFयों से प्रत्यक्ष या अप्रत्यक्ष लाभ न लिलये जाने, काया!लय आदे विदनांक 18.062022 के साथ संलग्न सविमति के साधारण सभा की 14 सदस्यीय सूची पर आमम्मिन्त्र आपलिF के क्रम में विनम्नलिललि0 सविमति के 40 साधारण सभा के सदस्यों के रफ से आज विदनांक 12.07.2022 को विनम्न् सूची प्रस्ु विकये जाने, यविद उपरोक्त विबन्दु  कथन ल पाये जाये ो सोसाइटी पंजीकरण अतिधविनयम 1860 के अधीन काय!ा,ी विकये जाने, मुझे कोई आपलिF न,ीं ,ोी का कथन विकया या ,ै।" ******************************************************** “काया!लय को प्रस्ु उक्त आपलिF / प्रपत्रों के विनस्ारण के क्रम में काया!लय पत्राक 816, विदनांक 25.08.2022 श्री सदानन्द तिारी, श्री सीाराम रस्ोी  श्री रामनल को प्रेविV करे ,ुए एं सुनाई ,ेु तिशिथ विनय करे ,ुए विनय तिशिथ को उपम्मिस्थ ,ोकर अपना-अपना पक्ष प्रस्ु विकये जाने ,ेु विनदWशि विकया या। काया!लय नोविटस विदनांक 25.08.2022 के क्रम में सुनाई की काय!ा,ी करे ,ुए विनय तिशिथ विदनाक 28.09.2022 को उपम्मिस्थ पक्षकारों की स,मति से पत्राली आदेाथ! संरतिक्ष करे ,ुए पक्षकारों की स,मति से पत्राली आदेाथ! संरतिक्ष करे ,ुए पक्षकारों को सविमति का मूल अशिभले0 जमा विकये जाने ,ेु विदनांक 10.10.2022 क का समय प्रदान विकया या। उक्त के उपरान् श्री ेदप्रका पाण्डेय के प्राथ!ना पत्र एं पू! प्रस्ु प्राथ!ना पत्र विदनाक 11/12.07. 2022 के विनस्ारण के क्रम में उक्त को सुनाई का असर विदया जाना समुतिच प्री ,ोने की म्मिस्थति में सुनाई की काय!ा,ी पुनः प्रारम्भ करे ,ुए काया!लय पत्रांक 1128. विदनांक 31 10.2022 श्री सदानन् तिारी, श्री सीाराम रस्ोी, श्री रामनल  श्री ेदप्रका पाण्डेय को प्रेविV करे ,ुए था सुनाई ,ेु तिशिथ विनय करे ,ुए विनय सुनाई में प्रतिभा कर अपना-अपना पक्ष प्रस्ु विकये जाने ,ेु विनदWशि विकया या। सुनाई तिमान र,ने की अतिध में ,ी त्कालीन स,ायक विनबन्धक के स्थानान्रण के फलस्रूप काय!ा,ी स्थवि र,ने था उक्त का संज्ञान ,ोने पर काया!लय पत्रांक 1577 विदनांक 10.01.2023 श्री सदानन्द तिारी, श्री सीाराम रस्ोी, श्री रामनल, श्री ेदप्रका को प्रेविV करे ,ुए एं सुनाई ,ेु तिशिथ विनय करे ,ुए विनय तिशिथ को अपने-अपने ससाक्ष्य लिललि0 अशिभकथन एं सविमति के मूल अशिभले0ों सवि, उपम्मिस्थ ,ोकर अपना-अपना पक्ष प्रस्ु विकये जाने ,ेु विनदWशि विकया या। काया!लय नोविटस के क्रम में प्रकरण में सुनाई ,ेु तिशिथयां विनय करे ,ुए विनय सुनाई 19 विदनांक 26.07.2023 को श्री सीाराम रस्ोी, श्री ेदप्रका पाण्डेय, श्री रामनल पाण्डेय के प्रतिविनतिध अतिधक्ता के माध्यम से उपम्मिस्थ र,ने, श्री सदानन्द तिारी के उपम्मिस्थ न र,ने, उपम्मिस्थ पक्षकारों की स,मति से पत्राली आदेाथ! संरतिक्ष करे ,ुए पक्षकारों को अपना-अपना लिललि0 ब,स  मूल अशिभले0 जमा विकये जाने ,ेु 10 विदनों का समय प्रदान विकया या।" **************************************************** “श्री ेदप्रका पाण्डेय द्वारा प्रस्ु प्राथ!ना पत्र / आपलिF विदनांक 12.07.2022 विदनांक 10.10.2022, विदनांक 23.03.2022  विदनांक 27.06.2023 के सम्मिम्मलिल अलोकन से श्री ेदप्रका पाण्डेय  अन्य के प्राथ!ना पत्र / आपलिF विदनांक 12.07.2022 द्वारा 40 सदस्यों के वितिधमान्य सदस्य ,ोने, 40 सदस्यों की वितिधमान्य सूची अंविक कर प्रस्ु विकये जाने के साथ मात्र पू! अध्यक्ष, उपाध्यक्ष, प्रबन्धक द्वारा विनवि, वि, में अपने अतिधकारों का दुरूपयो कर साधारण सभा के सदस्य (ेदप्रका पाण्डेय  अन्य) को कभी भी बैठक की सूचना न विदये जाने, साधारण सभा की सूची में उक्त 40 का नाम प्रस्ु न विकये जाने, सविमति की बैठकों में प्रतिभा विकये जाने से ंतिच ,ो जाने  आपलिFका! के अतिधकारों का जानबूझकर ,नन विकये जाने का कथन मात्र विकया या ,ै जबविक पत्र विदनांक 10.10.2022 द्वारा त्कालीन प्रबन्धक श्री रमाकर दूबे द्वारा मौलि0क रूप से अ कराये जाने का था उक्त मौलि0क सूचना के आधार पर विदनांक 02.07.2013 से विदनांक 14.07.2013 क सदस्या ुल्क  स,ायाथ! धनराशि जमा विकये जाने, बैठक विदनांक 28.10.2013 द्वारा सदस्या प्रदान विकये जाने, त्कालीन प्रबन्धक द्वारा सदस्या प्रमाण पत्र  रसीद विन! विकये जाने का कथन विकया या ,ै। श्री ेदप्रका पाण्डेय के आपलिF विदनांक 23.03.2022 द्वारा स!प्रथम सदस्या ,ेु त्कालीन प्रबन्धक को आेदन पत्र प्रस्ु विकये जाने का कथन विकया या ,ै। इसी र, श्री ेदप्रका पाण्डेय के आपलिF विदनांक 27.06.2023 द्वारा स!प्रथम सदस्या रजिजस्टर पर ,स्ाक्षर कराये जाने/ विकये जाने का कथन विकया या ,ै। श्री ेदप्रका पाण्डेय द्वारा प्रस्ु उक्त प्राथ!ना पत्रों/ आपलिF/अशिभकथन के अलोकन से श्री ेदप्रका पाण्डेय के पत्र विदनांक 12.07.2022  विदनांक 10.10.2022 द्वारा सदस्या ,ेु आेदन पत्र विदये जाने एं सदस्या रजिजस्टर पर ,स्ाक्षर विकये जाने का कोई कथन न,ीं विकया या ,ै था श्री रानल पाण्डेय  श्री 'सीाराम रस्ोी के आपलिF के 0ण्डन में पत्र विदनांक 23.03.2023 द्वारा स!प्रथम सदस्या ,ेु आेदन पत्र प्रस्ु विकये जाने एं आपलिF विदनांक 27.06.2023 द्वारा स!प्रथम सदस्या रजिजस्टर पर ,स्ाक्षर विकये जाने का कथन विकया या ,ै। श्री ेदप्रका पाण्डेय द्वारा काया!लय को प्रस्ु उक्त प्राथ!ना पत्रों/आपलिF/अशिभकथन के सम्मिम्मलिल अलोकन से श्री ेदप्रका पाण्डेय  अन्य द्वारा पश्च_ सोच की उपज प्रपत्र एं कथन कर सदस्या का दाा विकये जाने की म्मिस्थति स्पष्ट परिरलतिक्ष ,ोी ,ै। उक्त के अतिरिरक्त श्री ेदप्रका पाण्डेय  अन्य द्वारा V! 2013 में त्कालीन प्रबन्धक श्री रमाकर दूबे द्वारा उपलब्ध करायी यी सूचना के आधार पर सदस्या ुल्क / स,ायाथ! राशि जमा विकये जाने, त्कालीन प्रबन्धक द्वारा रसीद एं प्रमाण पत्र विन! विकये जाने, त्कालीन प्रबन्धक द्वारा साधारण सभा की बैठक विदनांक 28.10.2013 द्वारा सदस्या प्रदान विकये जाने से अ कराये जाने का एं सदस्या रजिजस्टर पर ,स्ाक्षर कराये जाने का कथन विकया या ,ै। य,ाँ य, उल्ले0नीय ,ै विक त्कालीन प्रबन्धक श्री रमाकर दूबे का विनधन विदनांक 17.11.2013 को ,ो या ,ै। इस र, त्कालीन प्रबन्धक के विनधन के लभ 9 V! उपरान् त्कालीन प्रबन्धक के मौलि0क सूचना पर सदस्य बने/बनाये जाने का कथन करे ,ुए एं त्कालीन प्रबन्धक मृक विदनांक 17.11.2013 के विनधन के 09 V! उपरान् मृक प्रबन्धक के ,स्ाक्षरों से सदस्या ुल्क रसीद  सदस्या प्रमाण पत्र प्रस्ु करे ,ुए सविमति के साधारण सभा का सदस्य बनने / बनाये जाने का कथन पूण!ः प्रश्नाचक ,ै। य,ाँ य, उल्ले0नीय ,ै विक 20 V! 2013 में श्री रमाकर दूबे के प्रबन्धक र,ने की अतिध में श्री रामनल पाण्डेय सविमति के अध्यक्ष एं श्री सीाराम रस्ो ी सविमति के उपप्रबन्धक र,ें था त्कालीन प्रबन्धक श्री रमाकर दूबे के विनधन के उपरान् उपप्रबन्धक श्री सीाराम रस्ो ी सविमति के प्रबन्धक चयविन ,ुए था र,ें। त्समय श्री रामनल पाण्डेय के अध्यक्ष ,ोने, श्री सीाराम रस्ो ी के उपप्रबन्धक ,ोने था श्री रमाकर दूबे के विनधन से श्री सीाराम रस्ो ी के प्रबन्धक चयविन ,ोने का थ्य काया!लय अशिभले0ों / पत्राली से पुविष्ट ,ै। काया!लय अशिभले0ों  पत्राली से पुविष्ट त्कालीन अध्यक्ष श्री रामनल पाण्डेय, त्कालीन उपप्रबन्धक श्री सीाराम रस्ो ी  श्री रमाकर दूबे के विनधन से रिरक्त स्थान पर चयविन प्रबन्धक श्री सीाराम रस्ो ी द्वारा पथ पत्र समर्थिथ आपलिF प्रस्ु करे ,ुए श्री ेदप्रका पाण्डेय  अन्य के सविमति का सदस्य बने/बनाये जाने, विदनांक 28.10.2013 को साधारण सभा की कोई बैठक ,ोने एं उक्त के द्वारा सदस्या स्ीकृ  विकये जाने, त्कालीन प्रबन्धक श्री रमाकर दूबे द्वारा सदस्या ुल्क की रसीद  सदस्या प्रमाण पत्र विन ! विकये जाने  श्री ेदप्रका पाण्डेय सवि, 40 के सविमति का सदस्य ,ोने के कथनों  सम्बम्मिन्ध प्रपत्रों का 0ण्डन करे ,ुए उक्त 40 को सविमति का सदस्य बना/बनाया या न ,ोने था उक्त की दा!यी यी सदस्या फज_ ,ोने का कथन विकया या ,ै। श्री रामनल पाण्डेय  श्री सीाराम रस्ो ी के 0ण्डन के प्रतिउFर में श्री ेदप्रका पाण्डेय द्वारा श्री रामनल पाण्डेय  श्री सीाराम रस्ो ी के विरूद्ध सविमति पर कब्जा विकये जाने  एकातिधकार स्थाविप विकये जाने  विनवि, वि, में असत्य आपलिF विकये जाने का कथन मात्र विकया या ,ै। त्कालीन अध्यक्ष  उपप्रबन्धक के पथ पत्र समर्थिथ 0ण्डन के आलोक में श्री ेदप्रका पाण्डेय द्वारा सविमति के साधारण सभा के बैठक विदनांक 28.10.2013  उक्त के द्वारा सदस्या स्ीकृ ति का विकया जा र,ा कथन अपुविष्ट ,ोने की म्मिस्थति में स्ीकार विकये जाने योग्य न,ीं ,ै। य,ाँ य, उल्ले0नीय ,ै विक सोसाइटी पंजीकरण अतिधविनयम 1860 के अधीन धारा-4 (बी) का समाे करे ,ुए विदनांक 09.10.2013 से उक्त को ला ू एं प्रभाी विकया या ,ै। धारा-4(बी) (1.2.3) के व्यस्था के अनुसार सविमति के पंजीकरण / नीनीकरण के समय साधारण सभा के सदस्यों की सूची प्रस्ु विकये जाने था प्रस्ु सूची के ुद्धा का परीक्षण सविमति के अशिभले0 यथा सदस्या पंजिजका, काय!ा,ी पंजिजका, कै बुक, सदस्या ुल्क रसीद बुक  बैंक पासबुक के आधार पर विकये जाने, साधारण सभा के सदस्यों की सूची में सदस्या ृतिद्ध या विकसी प्रकार का परिर!न ,ोने की म्मिस्थति में उक्त परिर!न के एक मा, के अन्दर साधारण सभा के सदस्यों की उपान्रिर सूची दालि0ल विकये जाने, उक्त दालि0ल विकये जाने ाले साधारण सभा के सदस्यों की सूची पर सोसाइटी के दो पदातिधकारी  दो काय!पालक सदस्यों का ,स्ाक्षर अंविक ,ोने की व्यस्था प्राविधाविन ,ै। श्री ेदप्रका पाण्डेय  अन्य द्वारा साधारण सभा की बैठक विदनांक 28.10.2013 द्वारा श्री ेदप्रका पाण्डेय सवि, 40 को सदस्या प्रदान विकये जाने के कथन के आलोक में सविमति के साधारण सभा में विदनाक 28.10.2013 को 40 सदस्यों की ृतिद्ध के कथन के आलोक में उक्त सदस्या ृतिद्ध/सदस्य बनाये जाने की काय!ा,ी पर सोसाइटी पंजीकरण अतिधविनयम 1860 की धारा-4 (बी) के व्यस्था ला ू एं प्रभाी ,ोने की म्मिस्थति पूण!या स्पष्ट ,ै। श्री ेदप्रका पाण्डेय  अन्य द्वारा विदनांक 28.10.2013 को कशिथ सदस्या स्ीकृ ति एं सदस्या ृतिद्ध स!प्रथम श्री ेदप्रका पाण्डेय  अन्य के प्राथ!ना पत्र विदनांक 12.07.2022 एं श्री वि रे यथासूतिच प्रबन्धक के प्राथ!ना पत्र विदनांक 11.07.2022 द्वारा काया!लय को प्रस्ु ,ै। उक्त प्राथ!ना पत्र विदनांक 11.07.2022  विदनांक 12.07.2022 द्वारा प्रस्ु प्रपत्रों पर काया!लय आदे विदनांक 18.06.2022 द्वारा प्रसारिर सविमति के साधारण सभा के 14 सदस्यीय सूची में अंविक विकसी सदस्य द्वारा या काया!लय पत्राली में उपलब्ध सविमति के प्रबन्धसविमति की त्कालीन ार्षिVक सूची में अंविक विकसी सदस्य का ,स्ाक्षर अंविक न,ीं ,ै। य,ाँ य, उल्ले0नीय ,ै विक काया!लय आदे पत्रांक 2700, विदनांक 20.11.2014 द्वारा सविमति के 21 प्रबन्धसविमति की सूची V! 2014-15 पंजीकृ  ,ै। उक्त के विपरी त्कालीन पदातिधकारिरयों द्वारा श्री ेदप्रका पाण्डेय सवि, 40 की दा!यी यी सदस्या  सदस्या स्ीकृ ति सम्बन्धी काय!ा,ी विदनाक 28.10.2013 का 0ण्डन विकया जा र,ा ,ै। श्री ेदप्रका पाण्डेय  अन्य द्वारा सोसाइटी पजीकरण अतिधविनयम 1860 की धारा-4 (बी) के अधीन सविमति के अशिभले0 प्रस्ु न करे ,ुए सविमति के अशिभले0ों का संरक्षक सविमति के पंजीकृ  विनयमाली के अनुसार सविमति के व्यस्थापक / प्रबन्धक के ,ोने, उक्त के द्वारा ,ी प्रस्ु विकये जा सकने का कथन विकया या ,ै। त्कालीन उपप्रबन्धक एं त्कालीन प्रबन्धक श्री रमाकर दूबे के विनधन से रिरक्त प्रबन्धक पद पर चयविन प्रबन्धक श्री सीाराम रस्ोी द्वारा सविमति के अशिभले0ों के सविमति द्वारा संचालिल विद्यालय के प्रधानाचाय! श्री ,रिर,र ुक्ल के लेकर चले जाने, आज क ापस न विकये जाने, त्सम्बन्ध में उच्चातिधकारिरयों के य,ां शिकाय विकये जाने का लिललि0 कथन विकया या ,ै। श्री ेदप्रका पाण्डेय के आपलिF द्वारा श्री रामनल पाण्डेय एं श्री सीाराम रस्ोी द्वारा उक्त 40 बने/बनाये ये सदस्यों को सदस्या से ंतिच विकये जाने के विनय से विनजी स्ाथ! में सविमति पर एकातिधकार स्थाविप विकये जाने ,ेु सविमति के अशिभले0ों को ायब कर विदये जाने था विद्यालय प्रधानाचाय! पर असत्य आरोप लाये जाने का कथन विकया या ,ै। काया!लय पत्राली के अनुसार काया!लय आदे विदनांक 18.06.2022 के विन!मन के क्रम में सम्पाविद सुनाई के क्रम में श्री सीाराम रस्ोी द्वारा प्राथ!ना पत्र विदनांक 19.01.2022 प्रस्ु करे ,ुए उक्त कथन विकया या ,ै था उक्त के साथ विद्यालय प्रधानाचाय! को प्रेविV पत्र विदनांक 10.06.2022, जिजला विद्यालय विनरीक्षक, आजमढ़ को प्रेविV पत्र विदनांक 09.09.2020 की छायाप्रति संलग्न कर प्रस्ु विकया या ,ै। य,ाँ य, उल्ले0नीय ,ै विक विदनांक 19.01 2022 को काया!लय पत्राली में श्री ेदप्रका पाण्डेय  अन्य 39 का कोई अम्मिस्त् न,ीं था। उक्त म्मिस्थति में ऐसे सदस्य या सदस्या जिजसका विक काया!लय पत्राली में विदनांक 19.01 2022 क कोई अम्मिस्त् ,ी न,ीं था को सदस्या से ंतिच विकये जाने के दुभा!ना से प्राथ!ना पत्र विदनांक 29.01.2022 प्रस्ु कर उक्त के द्वारा असत्य कथन विकये जाने का न ो कोई औतिचत्य ,ै और न, ,ी त्समय श्री सीाराम रस्ोी द्वारा दुभा!ना उक्त कथन विकये जाने की की जा र,ी आपलिF का ,ी कोई औतिचत्य ,ै। विकसी भी म्मिस्थति में सोसाइटी पंजीकरण अतिधविनयम 1860 की धारा-4 (बी) के व्यस्था के अधीन सम्बम्मिन्ध अशिभले0ों के उपलब्ध न ,ोने की म्मिस्थति में श्री ेदप्रका पाण्डेय  अन्य 39 की सदस्या  बैठक विदनांक 28.10.2013 द्वारा सदस्या प्रदान विकये जाने का विकया जा र,ा कथन पुविष्ट के अभा में एं धारा-4 (बी) के व्यस्था के अनुरूप स्ीकार विकये जाने योग्य न,ीं ,ै। उक्त के अतिरिरक्त श्री ेदप्रका पाण्डेय सवि, दा!ये ये 40 सदस्यों का सदस्या ुल्क सविमति के बैंक 0ाे में जमा ,ोने के पुविष्ट के अभा में सोसाइटी पंजीकरण अतिधविनयम 1860 की धारा-15 के प्रतिकू ल श्री ेदप्रका पाण्डेय सवि, 40 की सदस्या स्ीकार विकये जाने योग्य न,ीं ,ै। श्री ेदप्रका पाण्डेय द्वारा स्यं सवि, 40 की सदस्या ुल्क रसीद एं सदस्या प्रमाण पत्र छायाप्रति में पत्राली में प्रस्ु ,ै एं प्राथ!ना पत्र विदनांक 05.08.2023 के साथ सलग्न कर मूल रूप में प्रस्ु ,ै। उक्त सदस्या ुल्क रसीद विदनांक 02.07.2013 से विदनांक 14.07.2013 क की तिशिथयों में श्री रमाकर दूबे प्रबन्धक के ,स्ाक्षरों से विन! दा!यी यी ,ै था सदस्या ुल्क धनराशि रूपया 100  स,ायाथ! धनराशि अल-अल प्राप्त करे ,ुए रसीद विन! विकया जाना दा!या या ,ै। प्रस्ु सदस्या प्रमाण पत्र विदनांक 31.10.2013 की तिशिथ में श्री रमाकर दूबे प्रबन्धक के ,स्ाक्षर से विन! ,ै था उक्त प्रमाण पत्र में ,ी रसीद क्रमांक एं उक्त की तिशिथ, भुान की धनराशि, सदस्या श्रेणी का विरण अंविक ,ै। श्री सीाराम रस्ोी  श्री रामनल पाण्डेय द्वारा उक्त के प्रति आपलिF करे ,ुए उक्त को पूण!या फज_ ,ोने एं श्री रमाकर दूबे के फज_ ,स्ाक्षर से ैयार कर प्रस्ु विकये जाने का कथन विकया या ,ै। सविमति V! 1970 की पंजीकृ  ,ै था पंजीकरण के समय स्मृति पत्र पर अंविक 22 ,स्ाक्षर एं पंजीकरण के 43 V! पश्चा् सदस्या प्रमाण पत्र पर अंविक ,स्ाक्षर पर कु छ शिभन्ना विक सम्भाना समय के प्रा, से सम्भावि ,ै। काया!लय पत्राली में उपलब्ध श्री रमाकर दूबे के नीनीकरण प्राथ!ना पत्र 09.11.2010 एं उक्त के साथ संलग्न श्री रमाकर दूबे का फोटोयुक्त मूल नोटरी पथ पत्र  अन्य प्रपत्रों पर अंविक दा!या या ,ै। यद्यविप विक श्री रमाकर दूबे के ,स्ाक्षर से प्रस्ु उक्त नीनीकरण प्राथ!ना पत्र  उक्त के साथ संलग्न पथ पत्र विदनांक 25.10.2010  अन्य प्रपत्रों पर अंविक श्री रमाकर दूबे के ,स्ाक्षर एं श्री ेदप्रका पाण्डेय  अन्य द्वारा प्रस्ु सदस्या ुल्क रसीद (विदनांक 02.07.2013 से विदनाक 14.07.2013)  सदस्या प्रमाण पत्र विदनांक 31.10.2013 पर अंविक दा!या या श्री रमाकर दूबे का ,स्ाक्षर एं काया!लय पत्राली में उपलब्ध श्री रमाकर दूबे के नीनीकरण प्राथ!ना पत्र एं उक्त के साथ संलग्न पथ पत्र  अन्य प्रपत्रों पर अंविक दा!या या श्री रमाकर दूबे के ,स्ाक्षर में नी आं0ो से दे0े जाने पर एकरूपा परीलतिक्ष न,ीं ,ोी ,ै। थाविप अधो,स्ाक्षरी के स्र से उक्त विबन्दु पर म म्मिस्थर विकया जाना सम्भ न,ीं ,ो पा र,ा ,ै। श्री ेदप्रका  अन्य के प्राथ!ना पत्र विदनांक 12.07.2022 द्वारा विनम्न् कथन विकया या ,ैः- "श्री ,रिर,र संस्कृ  पाठाला, बाजार ोसाई, आजमढ़ के पू! श्रीमान् अध्यक्ष एं श्रीमान् उपाध्यक्ष  श्रीमान् प्रबन्धक म,ोदय आविद लोभ एं स्ाथ! से Iजिस ,ोकर एं अतिधकार का दुरूपयो करे ,ुए एं सविमति विरोधी तिवितिधयों में संलिलप्त ,ोने के कारण ,म सभी साधारण सभा के सदस्यणों के कभी भी बैठक के सन्दभ! में सूचना न,ीं देे थे था साधारण सभा की सूची में ,म सभी 40 सदस्यों का नाम भी प्रस्ु न,ीं करे र,े ,ै। इसलिलए पू! में आ,ू बैठकों में सम्मिम्मलिल ,ोने से ,म सभी साधारण सभा के सदस्यण ंतिच ,ोे र,े ,ै। इस प्रकार ,मारे अतिधकारों का ,नन जानबूझकर विकया जाा र,ा ,ै।" श्री ेदप्रका पाण्डेय के आपलिF विदनांक 10.10.2022 के विबन्दु संख्या 02 के अनुसार विद्यालय के प्रधानाचाय! द्वारा विद्यालय के सूचना पट्ट पर काया!लय आदे विदनांक 18.06.2022 की प्रति चस्पा विकये जाने पर आदे की जानकारी ,ुई, उक्त के पू! सुनाई के सम्बन्ध में कोई जानकारी न ,ोने का कथन विकया या ,ै परन्ु श्री ेदप्रका  अन्य द्वारा उक्त प्राथ!ना पत्र विदनांक 12.07.2022 या सुनाई के क्रम में प्रस्ु अशिभकथन /आपलिF/लिललि0 ब,स द्वारा क,ीं भी य, स्पष्ट न,ीं विकया या ,ै विक सविमति के पदातिधकारिरयों द्वारा उक्त 40 को बैठक की सूचना न विदये जाने, साधारण सभा की सूची मे उक्त 40 का नाम प्रस्ु न विकये जाने, सविमति के बैठकों में प्रतिभा करने से ंतिच र,ने का संज्ञान श्री ेदप्रका सवि, उक्त 40 को कब और कै से ,ुआ ,ै। य,ाँ य, उल्ले0नीय ,ै विक श्री ेदप्रका पाण्डेय  अन्य द्वारा विदनाक 28.10.2013 को सविमति के सदस्या प्रदान विकये जाने एं सदस्या रजिजस्टर पर ,स्ाक्षर अंविक विकये जाने का कथन विकया या ,ै। श्री ेदप्रका पाण्डेय के उक्त कथन एं श्री ेदप्रका पाण्डेय  अन्य के प्राथ!ना पत्र विदनाक 12.07.2022 द्वारा विकये ये कथन के आलोक में श्री ेदप्रका पाण्डेय  अन्य के V! 2013 से ,ी सविमति के बैठकों की सूचना सविमति के पदातिधकारिरयों द्वारा न विदये जाने, बैठकों में प्रतिभा विकये जाने से ंतिच कर विदये जाने  साधारण सभा के सदस्यों की सूची में नाम सम्मिम्मलिल न विकये जाने की म्मिस्थति में भी श्री ेदप्रका पाण्डेय सवि, 40 के द्वारा V! 2013 से लेकर V! 2022 क वि 09 Vr में सविमति का सदस्य ,ोने  सविमति के पदातिधकारिरयों द्वारा बैठकों की सूचना न देकर सविमति की बैठकों में प्रतिभा विकये जाने से बातिध / ंतिच कर विदये जाने की म्मिस्थति में श्री ेदप्रका पाण्डेय सवि, 40 के द्वारा वि 09 Vr में क्या काय!ा,ी की यी। य,ाँ य, उल्ले0नीय ,ै विक विदनांक 07.07.2022  विदनाक 11/12.07.2022 के पू! श्री ेदप्रका पाण्डेय सवि, 40 के द्वारा कभी कोई पत्र/प्राथ!ना पत्र/आपलिF काया!लय को प्रस्ु न,ीं ,ै और न ,ी श्री ेदप्रका पाण्डेय  अन्य द्वारा V! 2013 में सविमति की सदस्या प्रदान विकये जाने कथन विकये जाने के उपरान् भी वि 09 Vr में अपने 23 सदस्या या सविमति के पदातिधकारिरयों द्वारा बैठकों की सूचना न विदये जाने  सविमति के बैठकों में प्रतिभा विकये जाने से बातिध / ंतिच विकये जाने के सम्बन्ध में कोई पत्र/प्रपत्र/आपलिF काया!लय को प्रस्ु विकये जाने का कोई कथन ,ी विकया या ,ै। V! 2013 से सदस्या का दाा करने ाले साथ ,ी सविमति के पदातिधकारिरयों द्वारा सविमति के बैठकों की सूचना न देकर सविमति के बैठकों में प्रतिभा विकये जाने से ंतिच कर विदये जाने  स्यं के अतिधकारों का ,नन विकये जाने का कथन करने ाले श्री ेदप्रका पाण्डेय सवि, 40 के द्वारा वि 09 Vr में सविमति के सदस्या के सम्बन्ध में या बैठक की सूचना प्राप्त न ,ोने के सम्बन्ध में या बैठक में प्रतिभा विकये जाने से बातिध विकये जाने या सविमति के साधारण सभा की सूची में नाम सम्मिम्मलिल न विकये जाने के सम्बन्ध में विकसी भी स्र पर कभी विकसी स्र पर आपलिF प्रस्ु न विकये जाने के आलोक में श्री ेदप्रका पाण्डेय  अन्य द्वारा V! 2013 में सदस्य बनाये जाने का विकया जा कथन  दा!यी जा र,ी सदस्या पूण!ः पश्च_ सोच  काजी काय!ा,ी की उपज ,ोने के आधार पर स्ीकार विकये जाने योग्य न,ीं ,ै।" 34. The extracts of the order dated December 2, 2023, which have been reproduced in this order, categorically reveal that the issue of membership of 40 persons, which was raised by Respondent No’s. 6 and 7, was considered in its thread-bare and the Assistant Registrar had recorded a categorical finding that the version put forward by Mr. Giresh Kumar Pandey i.e. Respondent No. 7 and Mr. Ved Prakash Pandey i.e. Respondent No. 6 does not appear to be trustworthy, as it is not only improbable but impossible that the 40 persons, who were inducted as members of the general body of the Society vide resolution dated October 28, 2013, were never informed about any meeting of the general body of the Society and they did not participate in any meeting of the Society and further, they did not raise any voice regarding their claim of membership from October 28, 2013 till July 11/12, 2022, therefore, their claim of membership is not tenable and thus had rejected their claim. 35. This Court is of the view that by now, it is a well-settled proposition of law that quasi-judicial authorities do not have power to review their orders unless there is any statutory provision in that regard. However, there is an exception that if there is any procedural informality connecting to the roots of the issues involved, then the quasi-judicial authorities can review their orders based on the principle of procedural review. 24 36. Now, this Court proceeds to take into consideration the judgments cited by both the parties. The Supreme Court in its judgment rendered in the case of Dr. (Smt.) Kuntesh Gupta (Supra) had categorically held that the quasi-judicial authorities cannot review their decision unless the power of review is expressly conferred on them by the statute under which they derive their original jurisdiction. For ready reference, Paragraph No. 11 of the judgment is extracted as under:- “11. It is now well established that a quasi-judicial authority cannot review its own order, unless the power of review is expressly conferred on it by the statute under which it derives its jurisdiction. The Vice-Chancellor in considering the question of approval of an order of dismissal of the Principal, acts as a quasi-judicial authority. It is not disputed that the provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 of the Statutes of the University do not confer any power of review on the Vice-Chancellor. In the circumstances, it must be held that the Vice-Chancellor acted wholly without jurisdiction in reviewing her order dated January 24, 1987 by her order dated March 7, 1987. The said order of the Vice-Chancellor dated March 7, 1987 was a nullity.” 37. In another judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalabharati Advertising (Supra), it had been categorically held that the quasi-judicial authority cannot review its decision unless the same is expressly provided in the statute. For ready reference, Paragraph No’s. 12, 13 & 14 of the judgment are extracted as under:- “12. It is settled legal proposition that unless that statute/rules so permit, the review application is not maintainable in case of judicial/quasi-judicial orders. In the absence of any provision in the Act granting an express power of review, it is manifest that a review couldn ot be made and the order in review, if passed, is ultra vires, illegal and without jurisdiction. (Vide Patel Chunibhai Dajibha Vs. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar and Harbhajan Singh Vs. Karam Singh.) 13. In Patel Narshi Thakershi Vs. Pradyuman Singhji Arunsinghji, Majro Chandra Bhan Singh Vs. latafat Ullah Khan, Kuntesh Gupta (Dr.) Vs. Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, State of Orissa Vs. Commr. O Land Records and Settlement and Sunita Jain Vs. Pawan Kumar Jain this Court held that the power of review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by a law either expressly/specifically or by necessary implication and in the absence of any provision in the Act/Rules, review of an earlier order is impermissible as review is a creation of statute. Jurisdiction of review can be derived only from the statute and thus, any 25 order of review in the absence of any statutory provision for the same is a nullity, being without jurisdiction. 14. Therefore, in view of the above, the law on the point can be summarised to the effect that in the absence of any statutory provision providing for review, entertaining an application for review or under the garb of clarification/modification/correction is not permissible.” 38. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The State of West Bengal (Supra) and this Court in its judgment rendered in the case of Khachchan Singh (Supra) had also categorically held that the power of review of its decision cannot be exercised by a quasi-judicial authority unless the said power had been expressly conferred on it by the statutory provision. 39. The High Court of Bombay in its judgment rendered in the case of Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. (Supra) had categorically held that if the order passed by the quasi-judicial authority suffers from procedural infirmities then it can review the said decision on the principal of procedural review provided the parties seeking procedural review is able to demonstrate that the procedural illegality/irregularity went to the root of the matter and had invalidated the proceedings itself. For ready reference, Paragraph No’s. 26, 27, 33, 35 & 42 of the judgment are extracted as under:- “[26] This Court negatived the contention that the High Court under Article 215 would not have plenary jurisdiction including procedural review relating to the errors apparent on the face of the record. It is held by this Court in the said judgment that the provisions of the Arbitration Act do not exclude the powers of High Court to exercise its plenary powers and to exercise procedural review in case of errors apparent on the face of the record causing miscarriage of justice or shows grave and palpable errors committed by it. This Court distinguished the earlier judgment in case of M/s. Madhav Structural Engineering Ltd. (supra) and also in case of Rosy Blue (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), in the facts of that case, this Court found that the State Government had raised issue of limitation only in respect of the claim nos.3 to 5 and not in respect of claims nos.1 and 2. This Court however had set aside the award also in support of claim nos. 1 and 2 on the ground of limitation on its own. [27] This Court accordingly held that procedural review can be exercised by Court under plenary jurisdiction. The provisions of Code of Civil 26 Procedure, 1908 can be applied to the proceedings in Court to the extent of the provisions thereof not inconsistent with the provisions of the Arbitration Act. None of the provisions of the Arbitration Act bars High Court for procedural review by exercising plenary jurisdiction. This Court accordingly recalled the judgment and order passed by this Court in so far as the claim nos. 1 and 2, in that matter which were held as time barred by the said judgment by exercising plenary jurisdiction. …….[33] In so far as the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union (supra) relied upon by Mr. Sakhare, learned senior counsel for the respondent is concerned, a perusal of the said judgment indicates that the Supreme Court had considered the issue whether Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court has power to exercise procedural review under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or not and decided the difference between review on merits and procedural review. The Supreme Court in the said judgment held that power of review is not an inherent power and must be conferred by law either expressly or by necessary implication where a Court or quasi-judicial authority having jurisdiction to adjudicate on merit proceeds to do so, its judgment or order can be reviewed on merit only if the Court or quasi-judicial authority is vested with power of review by express provision or by necessary implication. Procedural review however belongs to a different category. In such a review, the Court or quasi-judicial authority having jurisdiction to adjudicate, proceeds to do so, but in doing so ascertains whether it has committed a procedural illegality that went to the root of the matter and invalidates the proceedings itself, and consequently the order passed therein. …….[35] The question now arises for consideration of this Court is whether the review petitioners have applied for procedural review or seeks review of the judgment and order passed by this Court on merit. A perusal of the judgment referred to aforesaid clearly indicates that the Court has inherent or implied powers to set aside a palpably wrong order passed under a misapprehension by it and if found erroneous and vitiated by an error of procedure or mistake which went to the root of the matter and invalidate the entire proceedings. I shall now proceed to decide whether review petitioner has demonstrated any such error of procedure or mistake which went to the root of the matter and whether in the facts of this case, Court shall exercise powers of procedural review under plenary jurisdiction or not. ……..[42] Mr. Doctor, learned senior counsel for the review petitioner tried to find fault with the observations made and the conclusion drawn by this Court even in paragraphs 74 and 75 of the said judgment on merits. In my view the observations/findings recorded therein do not disclose procedural error and thus cannot be corrected by exercising procedural review under plenary jurisdiction. There is difference between power of 27 Court to exercise procedural review by exercising plenary jurisdiction and power of review by exercising powers under Order XLVII Order 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the grounds set out therein. This Court thus cannot recall the observations/findings recorded therein and the conclusion drawn in paragraphs 74 and 75 based on the judgments of Supreme Court referred to aforesaid and based on facts.” 40. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No’s. 6 & 7 has relied upon judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd. (Supra) wherein it has been held that if the order passed by the quasi-judicial authority suffers from procedural infirmity / illegality, then the same can be reviewed under the principal of procedural review. For ready reference, Paragraph No. 29 of the judgment is extracted as under:- “29. Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. and Another, (2005) 13 SCC 777 is a decision by a Bench of 3 Judges which has also referred to Grindlays (supra). It is a case where the award was made on 12.06.1987 and published on 10.08.1987 The recall application was made on 07.09.1987, before the expiry of the 30 days period provided under Section 17A. It is also to be noted that the application for recall of the award was with a prayer for raising an additional issue. To quote from paragraph-20 of the judgment. "...The recall of the award of the Tribunal was sought not on the ground that in passing the award the Tribunal had committed any procedural illegality or mistake of the nature which vitiated the proceeding itself and consequently the award, but on the ground that some matters which ought to have been considered by the Tribunal were not duly considered. Apparently the recall or review sought was not a procedural review, but a review on merits. Such a review was not permissible in the absence of a provision in the Act conferring the power of review on the Tribunal either expressly or by necessary implication." Therefore, Kapra (supra) is distinguishable on facts and on the question of law dealt with therein: it was a case of substantive review whereas, setting aside an ex parte award is a matter of procedural review. In the case of procedural review, as held in Kapra (supra), the party has to establish that the procedure followed by the court or the quasi-judicial authority suffered from such illegality that it vitiated the proceeding and invalidated the order made therein, inasmuch as the opposite party concerned was not heard for no fault of his, or that the matter was heard and decided on a date other than the one fixed for hearing of the matter which he could not attend for no fault of his. In such cases, therefore, the matter has to be reheard in accordance with law without going into the merit of the order passed. The order passed is liable to be recalled and reviewed not because it is found 28 to be erroneous, but because it was passed in a proceeding which was itself vitiated by an error of procedure or mistake which went to the root of the matter and invalidated the entire proceeding. In Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal it was held that once it is established that the respondents were prevented from appearing at the hearing due to sufficient cause, it followed that the matter must be reheard and decided again.” 41. From the judgments referred herein above, it can be called out that, in normal circumstances, quasi-judicial authorities do not have any power to review their decisions unless there is a categorical provision in the statute to do so but procedural review of the orders passed by the quasi-judicial authorities is permissible. 42. This Court is of the view that for invoking procedural review of an order passed by the quasi-judicial authority, the person seeking review is under obligation to satisfy the authority that, had there not been a procedural error, the decision of the authority would have been otherwise. Now, coming to the facts of the present case, it is apparent that the issues raised by Respondent No. 6 & 7, in their objections raised before the Assistant Registrar vide their letters dated July 12, 2022 and July 11, 2022, were one and the same: i.e. they raised the claim of 40 persons as members of the general body of the Society, inducted through alleged resolution of the Committee of Management of the Society dated October 28, 2013. The said claim had been decided by the Assistant Registrar in his order dated December 02, 2023 in its thread-bare, though the Respondent No. 7 was not provided opportunity of hearing. 43. Once, the claim raised by Respondent No. 7 was considered by the Assistant Registrar in the order dated December 2, 2023 in its threadbare and findings had been recorded on the merits of the said claim, there cannot be any occasion for Respondent No. 7 to claim for procedural review of the order dated December 2, 2023, only on the ground that he was not afforded opportunity of hearing prior to passing of the order dated December 02, 2023 . This Court also takes note of the fact that Respondent No. 7, while filing the application for procedural review 29 either before the Assistant Registrar or before the Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh did not demonstrate as to if the opportunity of hearing would have been given to him, how that could have made any difference to the decision taken by the Assistant Registrar on December 2, 2023. 44. It is settled proposition of law that mere saying that a party has not been afforded opportunity of hearing cannot be a ground for procedural review unless it is demonstrated that, had the opportunity of hearing been afforded, the result of the proceedings would have been altogether different. In the case at hand, the Assistant Registrar, on the ground that Respondent No. 7 was not afforded opportunity of hearing while passing the order dated December 2, 2023, has in fact, considered the entire matter again on merits and has overturned his findings recorded on merits in respect of the membership of 40 persons in the order dated December 2, 2023 and has passed a fresh order dated May 30, 2024, which is not permissible under the garb of procedural review. It is a well-settled proposition of law that while exercising the power of review, only error apparent on the face of the record can be corrected but in the garb of review, entire matter cannot be reheard and fresh findings on merits of the case cannot be recorded. 45. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the case of Respondent No. 7 does not fall in the scope of the procedural review, as his entire case was already considered by the Assistant Registrar in his order dated December 2, 2023 and therefore, the Assistant Registrar, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh, lacked the authority to hear the entire matter afresh in the garb of procedural review and pass the impugned order dated May 30, 2024 thereby upholding the claim of membership of 40 members, which stood rejected vide earlier order dated December 2, 2023. Accordingly, the impugned order dated May 30, 2024, cannot be allowed to sustain, as the same is without jurisdiction. 30 46. So far as the argument raised by learned counsel for Respondent No's. 6 & 7 that the Assistant Registrar, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh, while providing instructions to learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State in Writ-C No. 11375 of 2024 stating that he is in the process of procedural review of the order dated December 2, 2023 and after concluding the review proceedings he will proceed to complete the elections, is concerned, this Court finds that the Assistant Registrar, pursuant to the order passed by this Court, appeared before the Court on May 17, 2024 and categorically stated that, in all probability, he will complete the elections pursuant to the order dated December 2, 2023, by July 15, 2024. This Court further finds that neither the Assistant Registrar filed any application for recall of the order dated May 17, 2024 passed in Writ-C No. 11375 of 2024 nor any such steps were taken by the Respondent No's. 6 & 7 of Writ C No. 20655 of 2024, therefore, there was no occasion for the Assistant Registrar to travel beyond order dated December 02, 2023. Once the Assistant Registrar made a statement before this court on May 17, 2024 that he shall complete the elections pursuant to the order dated December 02, 2023, then he should have adhered to his statement and if there was any ambiguity in the said statement, he could have approached the Court for recall of that order but no such effort was ever made. 47. The instructions provided by the Assistant Registrar to learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State is internal communication between them and this Court is not concerned as to what was written in the said instructions that too when it is apparent from the order dated May 17, 2024 that the Assistant Registrar was present before the Court in the proceedings of Writ-C No. 11375 of 2024 and he made a categorical statement that in all probability, he shall complete the elections pursuant to the order dated December 02, 2023 by July 15, 2024. 48. 48. Now, this Court proceeds to deal with the argument raised on behalf of Respondent No's. 6 and 7 that pursuant to the order dated 30 May 24, 31 elections of the Committee of Management of the Society have already been conducted but could not be given effect to due to an interim order passed in Writ-C No. 20655 of 2024, this Court finds it worth consideration that once the order dated 30/05/24 itself has been declared to be an illegal order, having been passed by the Assistant Registrar without jurisdiction, any consequential election is a nullity in the eyes of the law. In regard to the aforesaid, this Court finds it necessary to refer to the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 24.08.2022 rendered in Special Appeal No. 306 of 2022, Society-Gramin Siksha Prasar Samiti, Pratapgarh & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Others, whose relevant paragraph is extracted as under:- “26. One of the contentions raised by learned counsel for the respondent no.4 is that since after passing of the impugned orders by the Assistant Registrar the fresh elections have been held therefore without challenging the same the present appeal is not maintainable. Suffice would it be to say that once the basic order goes the superstructure would automatically fall. Applying this well recognized legal principle on the present case, we find that the judgment and order in the instant case was passed by the learned Single Judge on 09.06.2022 and the elections have been held, on the basis of impugned orders challenged in writ petition, subsequent thereto, therefore if the impugned orders are quashed, the subsequent action will automatically fall. Our this view is fortified by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Others (Supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case has held that it is a settled legal proposition that if initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root of the order. The relevant paragraphs 107 to 110 are extracted below:- "107. It is a settled legal proposition that if initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root of the order. In such a fact-situation, the legal maxim "sublato fundamento cadit opus" meaning thereby that foundation being removed, structure/work falls, comes into play and applies on all scores in the present case. 108. In Badrinath v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 3243; and State of Kerala v. Puthenkavu N.S.S. Karayogam & Anr., (2001) 10 SCC 191, this Court observed that once the basis of a proceeding is gone, all consequential acts, actions, orders would fall to the ground 32 automatically and this principle is applicable to judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative proceedings equally. 109. Similarly in Mangal Prasad Tamoli (dead) by Lrs. v. Narvadeshwar Mishra (dead) by Lrs. & Ors., (2005) 3 SCC 422, this Court held that if an order at the initial stage is bad in law, then all further proceedings, consequent thereto, will be non est and have to be necessarily set aside. 110. In C. Albert Morris v. K. Chandrasekaran & Ors., (2006) I SCC 228, this Court held that a right in law exists only and only when it has a lawful origin. (See also: Upen Chandra Gogoi v. State of Assam & Ors., (1998) 3 SCC 381 Satchidananda Misra v. State of Orissa & Ors., (2004) 8 SCC 599; Regional Manager, SBI v. Rakesh Kumar Tewari, (2006) 1 SCC 530; and Ritesh Tewari & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 3823). 111. Thus, in view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the orders impugned being a nullity, cannot be sustained. As a consequence, subsequent proceedings/orders/FIR/ investigation stand automatically vitiated and are liable to be declared non est." 49. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that the order dated May 30, 2024 has been passed by the Assistant Registrar, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh, without having any jurisdiction to do so, as such, the said order, being illegal and without jurisdiction, is unsustainable in the eyes of the law, thus is quashed. The elections, if any, in terms of the order dated May 30, 2024, being consequential in nature, are also quashed and set aside. 50. The writ petitions are allowed with a direction to the Assistant Registrar, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh, to complete the elections of the Committee of Management of the Society strictly in terms of the order dated December 02, 2023 within a period of two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. (Manjive Shukla,J.) April 20, 2026 Lokesh Kumar Digitally signed by :- LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad