members, all aspects relating to membership would have to be examined. The order of the prescribed authority acknowledging the list of 130 members, therefore, cannot be brushed aside without there being any independent consideration with regard to claim of such members. Even the list of 93 members, which has been accepted by the Assistant Registrar, merely proceeds on the premise that previous elections were held from the list of such members. This may be a relevant fact but the Assistant Registrar cannot be absolved from undertaking the statutory exercise expected of him in terms of Section 4-B of the Act of 1860 when there is a serious challenge to the membership of the society. It is apparently to get over such disputes that Section 4-B has been inserted by way of amendment and this is a fit case in which the Assistant Registrar ought to have called for the original records and determined the list of members before registering the list of 93 members. The order of the Assistant Registrar is absolutely silent with regard to the factors specified in Section 4-B even with regard to the list of 93 persons which has been accepted by him. Apart from the fact that such members had participated in the last elections, there is no other material supporting their claim of membership. Section 4-B statutorily mandates the Assistant Registrar to refer to the original records to examine the correctness of the list of members of 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. The order of the Assistant Registrar is absolutely silent with regard to examination of claim of membership with reference to the statutory factors enumerated in Section 4-B. In a given case where the membership is not disputed, it is always open for the Assistant Registrar to rely upon the list of undisputed members who have participated in previous elections, but in a case where claim of membership is seriously disputed and the orders of the prescribed authority are open to interpretation, the safest course for the Assistant Registrar would be to examine the original records and return an independent finding with regard to claim of membership. So far as the division bench judgment of this Court in Special Appeal No. 355 of 2019, relied upon by the respondents are concerned, this Court finds that the observations made therein were in the context of facts of that case as the previous elections were held on the basis of 63 members and there was apparently no serious challenge laid to it. In the facts of the present case, however, such is not the case. The election of the year 2011 held on the basis of 93 members was challenged and there is no apparently no adjudication on merits of the claim. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of the direction issued to constitute the managing committee of the educational institution. A special appeal is reportedly pending. Technically the respondents may be justified in asserting that no interference has been made by this Court in the order of the Assistant Registrar, but such disposal cannot be construed as an act of approval of the order passed by the Assistant Registrar. The subsequent dispute of membership of society, therefore, will have to be resolved in accordance with law. The disposal of the writ petition in the year 2013, therefore, will not foreclose the claim of petitioners, nor would it absolve the Assistant Registrar from the statutory responsibility imposed upon him under Section 4-B of the Act of 1860."
