Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:39353 Court No. - 32 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7926 of 2025 Petitioner :- Amrapali Sapphire Phase-1 Apartments Owners Association At Sector-45 Noida Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravitendra Pratap Singh Chandel,Sushil Shukla,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushalendra Nath Singh Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Rahul Sripat, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sushil Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2 and Sri Sarthak Sinha, Advocate holding brief of Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.3. 2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has assailed the order dated 07.01.2025 by which the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Ghaziabad has referred the matter with respect to election of petitioner under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 to the Prescribed Authority. 3. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner's election has been held in accordance with the bye-laws of Amrapali Sapphire Phase-1 Apartments Owners Association, Sector-45 Noida, District Gautam Buddh Nagar which was given prior approval by the respondent no.3 on 13.10.2017 and was duly registered by the respondent no.2 on 08.11.2017. 4. It is submitted that petitioner has raised specific objection that there was no illegality in the election, and therefore, it is not a case of reference under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is further contended that reference order dated 07.01.2025 has been passed without application of mind and is bereft of any reason, therefore, impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 5. Be that as it may, in the impugned order, the Deputy Registrar has noted the contents of complaint in paragraph no.2 in which it is alleged that notice of election has not been given to all the residents of 11 towers and notice of election was given to the residents of only 4 towers. Besides this, there was further allegation that direction given in the Writ-C No.12380 of 2023 passed by this Court on 20.07.2023 has not been followed and adhered to. 6. Though, it is contended by Sri Rahul Sripat, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that under the bye-laws of the Society, the Committee of Management consist of 11 members and each member should belong to or be resident of one tower. Since the term of members of 4 tower was completed, therefore, election only with regard to 4 towers were held, and notices given to residents of 4 towers whose members have retired are entitled to elect members from their tower. Accordingly, it is submitted that complaint was frivolous. 7. In the opinion of the Court, once the objection has been raised with regard to election and there is dispute of office bearers/members of the Society, therefore, the matter should be referred to under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act. 8. In the instant case, the contents of complaint have been noted by the Deputy Registrar in the second paragraph of the impugned order, and specific allegation has been made that election has not been held in accordance with the bye-laws of the Society inasmuch as only members of 4 towers have been given notice, and no notice with regard to election was given to the residents of rest of the 7 towers. The further allegation is that the direction contained in the judgement dated 20.07.2023 passed in Writ-C No.12380 of 2023 has not been adhered to or followed. 9. These allegations are required to be considered and in the opinion of the Court, the allegations prima facie need examination and investigation by a competent authority and since there is a dispute of office bearers/members of the Society, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that Deputy Registrar has not committed any illegality in referring the matter to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act. 10. Thus for the reasons given above, the writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 11. However, dismissal of the writ petition will not come in the way of petitioner in raising objection before the Prescribed Authority available to him under the law. Order Date :- 19.3.2025 Sattyarth Digitally signed by :- SATTYARTH ANAND High Court of Judicature at Allahabad