Allahabad High Court
C/M Ghorath Shankarpur Kisan U.M. ... vs State Of U.P. And Others on 9 February, 2011
Author: A.P. Sahi
Bench: A.P. Sahi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. 38 CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 7087 OF 2011 Committee of Management, Ghorath Shankarpur, Kisan Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Ghorath, District Kushinagar and another. Vs. State of U.P. and others. Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J.
This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the Committee of Management, Ghorath Shankarpur, Kisan Uchchatar Madhyamik, Vidyalaya, Ghorath, Post Kubernath, District Kushinagar, which is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1860 Act') running an institution of the level of a Junior High School, which is recognized under the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 for the purpose of disbursement of salary and administration of the institution. The signatures of the Manager are attested by the District Basic Education Officer.
The petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order dated 28.12.2010 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur whereby all claims pertaining to the elections and registration of list of office-bearers have been rejected and it has been held that since the tenure of the Committee of Management has already expired, therefore, in view of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the 1860 Act, the Assistant Registrar is to proceed to hold the elections. For the said purpose, the Assistant Registrar has nominated the District Basic Education Officer, Kushinagar to proceed to hold the elections and he has further declared a list of 14 members to be the valid list from which the elections will be held excluding those who are dead.
Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the finding on the issue relating to membership is based on erroneous assumptions of fact and there are no cogent reasons given for not having accepted the members as reflected by the petitioners hence the impugned order is vitiated. He further submits that if the Assistant Registrar had any doubt or dispute with regard to the elections held in between, from 1995 onwards, then he ought to have referred the matter to the Prescribed Authority under sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the 1860 Act where after any decision could have been taken for declaring the previous Committee to be defunct. He, therefore, contends that this having not been done, the Assistant Registrar has adopted a wrong approach and has transgressed his jurisdiction.
The contention further raised is that the declaration of such members, who were the office-bearers and members of the Committee of Management elected in 1991 is an absolutely erroneous approach and that such an electoral college, if allowed to stand, would materially affect the constitution of the Committee of Management that would be contrary to the bye-laws and against the facts on record. He, therefore, contends that the order deserves to be set aside in its entirety.
Another submission of Sri Saxena is that the earlier disputes of 1991 and 1993 was between the petitioners and one Sarju Bhagat, who has not contested the position of the petitioners and, therefore, the intervention of the other two factions of Vishwanath Gupta and that of Subhash Tiwari and Jyotish Kumar Pandey should not be even entertained as they are rank trespassers. He further submits that Vishwanath Gupta was never accepted by the Assistant Registrar as a validly elected office-bearer and, therefore, any claim set up by him does not require any adjudication. To substantiate his submission he contends that none of the factions including Vishwanath Gupta or Jyotish Kumar Pandey has filed any writ petition questioning the correctness of the impugned order and their very intention to support the impugned order clearly indicates that they have abandoned their claim against the findings recorded by the Assistant Registrar rejecting their stand. In such a situation, Sri Saxena submits that the Assistant Registrar had no option but to accept the claim of the petitioner-Maqsood Ali Ansari, who has been throughout functioning as Manager. Even today his signatures stand attested by the Basic Education Officer, insofar as, the Junior High School is concerned. The ultimate submission of Sri Saxena is that the dismissal of writ petition being Writ Petition No. 25285 of 1991 as infructuous on 21st November, 2001 does not in any way reject the elections and the membership of the general body as set up therein by the petitioners and the dismissal of the writ petition as infructuous is not an adjudication on the merits of the claim.
In this view of the matter, the Assistant Registrar without recording any finding on the merits of the documents submitted and without appropriately adjudicating the said claim, the holding of fresh elections under sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the 1860 Act is unwarranted, inasmuch as, the petitioner-Committee is the outgoing Committee, that is the petitioners, who can at best hold elections, and not the Assistant Registrar.
Sri Saxena has invited the attention of the Court to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the 1860 Act to contend that the Assistant Registrar has to record a positive finding and he cannot assume jurisdiction to hold elections if the finding on the issue of the Committee having become defunct is vitiated or is otherwise wanted.
Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no. 3 submits that so far as the findings recorded on the issue of the membership are concerned, if the Court finds that the findings are erroneous then the matter can be remitted for a decision before the Assistant Registrar. He does not propose to file any counter affidavit at this stage. Learned Standing Counsel has also adopted the same argument and he also does not propose to file any counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Sri Khare further submits that the Assistant Registrar has rightly proceeded to treat the earlier Committee to be defunct, inasmuch as, the Assistant Registrar has never registered the list of office-bearers of the petitioner-Committee and the Society remains unregistered after 1995. He, therefore, contends that the claim of the petitioners with regard to the subsequent elections, is absolutely erroneous. The submission is that once the writ petition was dismissed on 21st November, 2011 that was filed by the petitioner, he ought to have pursued the claim, which was never accepted at any stage and in the absence of any fresh elections having been acknowledged the exercise of power by the Assistant Registrar under sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the 1860 Act cannot be disputed. The petitioners, therefore, cannot claim that they have a right to hold fresh elections and to that extent the impugned order deserves to be upheld.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the undisputed position is that in so far as the petitioners are concerned, they had come up before this Court in Writ Petition No. 25285 of 1991 assailing the order dated 12.08.1991 of the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur whereby the Assistant Registrar upheld the registration dated 22.03.1991 of the list of office-bearers and further that any interference with the previously undertaken exercise by his office is unwarranted. The said order virtually upheld the registration of the list of office-bearers elected on 06.01.1991 with one Raj Mangal Pandey as President and Sarju Bhagat as Manager. The petitioner-Maqsood Ali Ansari claiming himself to have been elected as Manager on 10.01.1991 had filed the writ petition challenging the said order. The operation of the order dated 12.08.1991 was stayed by this Court, vide order dated 05.09.1991 in the aforesaid writ petition. The said writ petition remained pending with the interim order operating till it was ultimately dismissed on 21st November, 2001.
In between, the renewal of the Society expired in 1995. It was neither renewed nor any list of office-bearers was registered thereafter by the Assistant Registrar. The claim of the petitioners is that Sarju Bhagat, who was then claiming himself to be the Manager had already surrendered his pursuit and as a matter of fact, it is the petitioner-Maqsood Ali Ansari who continued to be recognized as Manager and functioning as such. However, the Assistant Registrar did not pass any order on the documents submitted by the petitioners on 09.01.1994 and the subsequent elections held on 09.01.1997. It is further alleged by the petitioners that elections were held on 09.01.2000 and again on 05.01.2003 and 09.01.2006. The last election claimed by the petitioners is on 09.01.2009.
At this juncture, it would be relevant to point out another bone of contention between the parties, namely the tenure of the Committee of Management. The petitioners in this petition have alleged to have held elections at an interval of three years whereas the learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 Sri Ashok Khare submits that Clause 9 of the bye-laws provide for the tenure to be five years and that the petitioners before the Assistant Registrar relied on a forged copy of the bye-laws.
The dispute took a turn when according to the recital in the writ petition as also indicated in the impugned order the respondent no. 3-Vishwanath Gupta moved an application on 25.08.2009 before the Assistant Registrar that Writ Petition No. 25285 of 1991 had already been dismissed on 21.11.2001 and simultaneously he also tendered election proceedings dated 09.01.2000 and 09.01.2005 along with a list of 35 members of the general body, on the strength whereof, the respondent no. 3-Vishwanath Gupta claimed renewal of the Society and the list of office-bearers.
On 6th October, 2009, the petitioners submitted a request for renewal of the Society with a list of 25 persons as members of the general body and the list of office-bearers to be registered accordingly. With the aforesaid claim having been set up and a third faction led by Jyotish Kumar Pandey having arrived on the scene, the Assistant Registrar called for objections taking notice of the aforesaid facts. The respondent no. 3 file Writ Petition No. 47091 of 2010 claiming a right to get the Society renewed in his favour with the list of his office-bearers. This Court rejected the claim of the respondent no. 3 with liberty to approach the Assistant Registrar for exercising his power under sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the 1860 Act, in case, it is found that no valid elections have been held in relation to the Society within a reasonable time. The judgment dated 11.08.2010 which records the entire dispute is quoted herein below for ready reference:
"Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the petitioner be taken on record.
Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri R.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
Gorath Shankarpur Kissan Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya is a society duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The said society has established an institution in the same name and style i.e. Gorath Shankarpur Kissan Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Gorath Kubernath, Kushi Nagar. In paragraph-5 of the present writ petition, it is stated that the controversy with regard to the elections of the office bearers of the society was adjudicated by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur, resulting in writ petition no. 25285 of 1991 (Masood Ali Ansari vs. Assistant Registrar & others). An interim order was granted by the Writ Court on 5th September, 1991. Because of the interim order, the Committee of Management with Masood Ali Ansari as the Manager continued to manage the institution. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed as infructuous under the order of the Writ Court dated 21st January, 2001.
On these allegations, petitioner has set up an independent election with the help of 2/3rd members of the society, who had convened the meeting for the purpose on 9th June, 2005. Papers in that regard were forwarded to the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur for registering the list of office bearers. The Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits issued notices to the petitioner vide letter dated 27th October, 2009 to appear before him on 10th November, 2009 and thereafter no further action has been taken. Petitioner further alleges fresh elections have been held on 9th January, 2010. With reference to elections so held on 9th January, 2010, petitioner has forwarded the papers to the District Basic Education Officer for elections being recognized and the signatures of the petitioner as the Manager being attested.
Petitioner by means of the present writ petition seeks a writ of mandamus directing the District Basic Education Officer as the manger of the institution as well as to approve the elections so held.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and having examined the records of the present writ petition, I am of the considered opinion that under the bye-laws of the society, which runs and manages the institution, power to hold the election of the office bearers of the society is vested in the general body of the society (reference clause-8 of the bye-laws). Under clause 11, Mantri of the society is authorised to convene the meeting of the Samitis. There is no other provision for convening the meeting of the general body. What logically follows is that it is Mantri of the society alone, who can convene the meeting of the general body. The term of the elected office bearers of the society has been provided as 3 years with no further stipulation as to what will be happened thereafter.
In the opinion of the Court, it is the office bearers of the society who is empowered to convene any meeting of the general body and in absence of the any other provisions under the bye-laws no third person has any right to convene the meeting. Petitioner was admittedly not the outgoing office bearers. In these set of circumstances, this Court finds little or no justification for any meeting being held as claimed by the petitioner on 9th July, 2005 and subsequently on 9th January, 2010. A no point of time, petitioner was ever recognized as the lawful office bearer of the society of the institution. Therefore, no mandamus, as prayed for, can be issued asking the District Basic Education Officer to take appropriate decision on the papers submitted by the petitioner qua elections held on 9th January, 2010.
However, if the grievance of the petitioner is that no fresh elections have taken place, even after the writ petition was dismissed in 2001, such cause can be the basis for interference by the Assistant Registrar in exercise of powers under Section 25 (2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, inasmuch as if the Assistant Registrar is satisfied that elections of the office bearers of the society have not taken place within reasonable time after expiry of the term of the society, he can convene a meeting of the general body for the purpose.
In view of the aforesaid, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur for exercising his power under Section 25 (2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. In case the petitioner makes an application before the Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits within two weeks from today, along with a certified copy of this order, the Assistant Registrar shall pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, by means of a reasons speaking order, preferably within four weeks after affording opportunity of hearing to out going office bearers.
The present writ petition is disposed of accordingly."
The aforesaid order was obviously passed ex-parte to the petitioners where after the Assistant Registrar taking notice of the previous facts and the directions in the above mentioned judgment dated 11.08.2010 proceeded to hear the matter.
The aforesaid judgment, therefore, seals the fate of the respondent no. 3 and the findings recorded by the Assistant Registrar against Jyotish Kumar Pandey also seals his fate. Jyotish Kumar Pandey has admittedly not filed any writ petition challenging the said order nor is he a party to the present writ petition. It can be further safely inferred from the findings recorded by the Assistant Registrar that if there was an interim order operating in Writ Petition No. 25285 of 1991 till 21.11.2001, then the respondent no. 3 could not have held elections in the year 2010 and on that basis he could not have held any elections prior to that or even thereafter. This has already been put to rest by the judgment dated 11.08.2010. The same reasoning would apply to the case of Jyotish Kumar Pandey, who has been rightly treated to be a rank trespasser by the Assistant Registrar.
Two caveats have been filed by Sri A.K. Pandey, Advocate and Sri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate both on behalf of Vishwanath Gupta. In such a situation, the contest put forth by the petitioners has only to be examined as they have continued to have control over the management of the Junior High School where the signatures of petitioner no. 2 continue to be attested by the Basic Education Officer.
The petitioners silence from 2001 onwards to the extent of not agitating their claim either before this Court or making any effort to get their list registered has been explained by Sri P.N. Saxena orally contending that the petitioners had no knowledge about the dismissal of the writ petition as infructuous in 2001. He submits that this is evident from the fact that the respondent no. 3 moved the application on 25.08.2009 after eight years which explains that no one had knowledge about the dismissal of the writ petition as infructuous. This contention of Sri Saxena cannot be accepted, inasmuch as, no effort was made to get the order recalled and even otherwise, there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioners had no knowledge about the said writ petition having been dismissed in default. It appears that Sarju Bhagat was no longer interested in the matter and the petitioner continued to bask under the sun of his recognition by the Basic Education Officer.
Sri P.N. Saxena, on the other hand, submits that if the writ petition has been dismissed as infructuous, the same does not amount to rejection of the claim of elections having been held at regular intervals as projected before the Assistant Registrar and which could have been adjudicated either by the Prescribed Authority or a competent forum and not by the Assistant Registrar.
In this regard, it has to be noticed that the finding recorded by the Assistant Registrar is that the petitioners had submitted proceedings dated 9th January, 2000 and 9th January, 2005 indicating elections at an interval of five years. The recital to this effect in the impugned order is as follows:
^^Jhedlwn vyh valkjh }kjk izLrqr dk;Zokfg;ksa o izca/k lfefr ds laca/k esa i{kksa }kjk izLrqr izR;kosnu@tokc i=koyh esa miyC/k izi= ,oa iathd`r fu;ekoyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA Jh edlwn vyh valkjh }kjk izLrqr dk;Zokgh fnuaakd 9-1-2005] 9-1-2010 dh dk;Zokgh esa p;fur izca/k lfefr ds izca/kd ds vk/kkj ij nkok izLrqr fd;k x;kA Jh edlwn vyh valkjh }kjk izca/k lfefr ds pquko dh dk;Zokgh 5&5 o"kZ ds dk;Zdky ds vk/kkj ij izLrqr dh x;h gSA tcfd iathd`r fu;ekoyh ds vuqlkj izca/k lfefr dk dk;Zdky 3 o"kZ dk gS rFkk cSBd cqykus dk vf/kdkj laLFkk ds ea=h dks gSA buds }kjk o"kZ 1991 esa izLrqr dh x;h fuokZpu dk;Zokgh Hkh rRdkyhu lgk;d jftLVz~kj }kjk vekU; fd;k tk pqdk gS vkSj mlds fo:) ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa buds }kjk ;ksftr ;kfpdk Hkh fnukad 21-11-2001 dks fMlfel dj fn;k x;kA ,sls esa buds }kjk Hkh izLrqr dk;Zokgh ,oa izi= fu;ekuqdwy u gksus ds dkj.k Lohdkj ;ksX; ugh gSA^^""
This runs counter to the averment contained in the writ petition where it is narrated that the elections were held every three years. The petitioners affidavit before the Assistant Registrar, copy whereof is annexure 13 to the writ petition and his applications do not indicate any such elections held at the interval of three years by the petitioners. However the impugned order does recite that papers for renewal had been filed by the petitioners and the respondent no. 3 during the pending of this entire dispute.
It is, therefore, evident that the list of office-bearers alleged to have been submitted by the petitioners before the Assistant Registrar was never accepted as a valid list and the petitioners never questioned this alleged inaction in spite of the fact that the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous on 21.11.2001 by the following order:
"List is revised. None appeared to press this petition. This petition is also listed in the list of cases likely to have become infructuous by efflux of time. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed for default."
If the petitioners had been setting up periodical elections then the same could have been brought to the notice of this Court in the said writ petition or any further request could have been made for a direction to the Assistant Registrar to consider their request. No such effort has been made for the past 10 years.
Even assuming for the sake of argument that the dismissal of the writ petition does not in any way affect the rights of the petitioners, it is to be noted that the order under challenge in Writ Petition No. 25285 of 1991 was an order passed by the Assistant Registrar in favour of Sarju Bhagat. The same had never acknowledged the petitioner-Maqsood Ali Ansari as the Manager of the institution. In such a situation the claim that the elections have been held by the petitioners subsequently would be dependant on the merits of the order dated 12.08.1991 which cannot be permitted to be agitated now as the petitioner himself has allowed, the said writ petition to be dismissed as infructuous by efflux of time. Thus the rejection of the claim of the petitioners having not been agitated by the petitioners themselves, the petitioners cannot claim that they had held valid elections subsequently merely on the basis of submission of papers as alleged by them.
The law is settled that the proceedings under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the constitution of a Society thereunder would bind the educational authorities, particularly the institutions that are managed by a Society registered under the 1860 Act. The Junior High School of which the petitioner claims to be the recognised manager is also covered by the said proposition in view of this legal position as explained in the case of A.K. College Vs. State, 2000 (1) UPLBEC 778. The recognition of the petitioner as manager of the institution by the District Basic Education Officer would be dependant upon the office-bearers registered and recognised by Assistant Registrar under the 1860 Act. The right of the petitioner to claim continuance would therefore be dependant on the orders passed by the authorities under the 1860 Act. The District Basic Education Officer would be bound by such orders and will have to abide by the same. The converse therefore would not be in consonance with the law aforesaid. The petitioners control over the affairs of the Society has to be independently established and any recognition by the District Basic Education Officer would by itself not be truth enough to acknowledge lawful control of the petitioners over the Society.
The dismissal of the petition as infructuous on 21.11.2001 and its impact has to be considered as it related to an order passed by the Assistant Registrar. The interim order passed on 05.09.1991 simply put in abeyance the order dated 13.08.1991 and its effect was not wiped off. For this one can gainfully refer to the Apex Court decision in the case of Shree Chamundi Copeds Ltd. Vs. Church or South India Trust Assn. CSI Cinodsecretariat, Madr reported in (1992) 3 SCC 1. Consequently, once the interim order was discharged with the dismissal of the petition, the order impugned retained its status. The petitioners appear to be content with its dismissal as infructuous, little realising that the impact of the existence of the order impugned therein was not taken away.
The question as to whether what is meant by the dismissal of a writ petition as infructuous has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. R.S. Khan Vs. State of U.P. and thers reported in 2005 (1) ESC 515. The relevant part of the decision extracted from paragraphs 16 and 17 is quoted below:
"16. This decision clearly lays down that the stay of the operation of an order does not mean that the removal order dated 18.3.1999 ceased to exist or it had been wiped out. The removal order till it is quashed would remain in existence. The word "infructuous" had been defined in The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 1993 edition as below:
"Infructuous" has been mentioned as "Not bearing fruit; unfruitful, barren; unprofitable, ineffective."
17.The effect of dismissal of writ petition as infructuous did not result in setting aside, or quashing the order of removal, dated 18.3.1999. The petitioner should have requested the court to decide the petition on merits, or she could have filed a review petition. She did not challenge the order, dated 16.11.2002, dismissing her Writ Petition No. 12246 of 1999 as infructuous after expiry of her term. Invita beneficium non datur. The law confers upon a man no right or benefits which he does not desire, whoever waives, abandons or disclaims a right will loose it. The removal order would cast a stigma on the petitioner. It is true that after the petitioner's term elapsed, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued, but a writ of certiorari to quash the removal order could have been issued. The effect of the quashing the order would have been that the removal order, dated 18.3.1999, would have ceased to exist and the position existing prior to the removal order would have been restored. Therefore, it cannot be said that after the expiry of term of the petitioner as President, she had no longer any interest in getting the removal order quashed, because if the removal order remained intact, the petitioner would be disqualified for contesting subsequent election."
The elections have to be held in accordance with bye-laws, which are validly registered under the Societies Registration Act. Any bye-law being relied upon, which is contrary to the same, cannot be made the basis of holding elections. This aspect also ought to have been probed further by the Assistant Registrar as to what were the validly registered bye-laws for the purpose of holding elections. Apart from this, the question of bye-laws has been seriously disputed. If the tenure prescribed is five years and if the elections have been held by the petitioners every three years then this claim also will have to be examined on the strength of the valid registered bye-laws.
The Assistant Registrar has, however, attributed his findings more towards the finalization of the electoral college. He records a finding that since Sarju Bhagat had remained the undisputed Manager in the past and the proceedings of his period reflect that there were 80 to 100 members but the same does not inspire confidence, inasmuch as, the papers and the typewriting material are doubtful, and the parentage and the address of some of the members are missing, therefore, the same cannot be accepted. He further records that the first three pages of said list did not bear the signatures of Sarju Bhagat and, therefore, the same cannot be accepted. He negates the said membership on the basis whereof Sri Sarju Bhagat had been elected as Manager whereas simultaneously he considered it fit to accept such persons as valid members, who were elected as members of office-bearers of the Committee in the elections held on 6th January, 1991.
The aforesaid finding of the Assistant Registrar is patently perverse, inasmuch as, once he comes to the conclusion that the proceedings dated 6th January, 1991 in which Sarju Bhagat was elected as Manager as a valid proceeding for the purpose of accepting membership, then he could not have negated the very list of members who had participated in the elections held on 6th January, 1991. The Assistant Registrar failed to further probe the enrollment and the deposit of membership fee of such members and the proceedings relating thereto. He, therefore, committed an error by rejecting the membership on a mere perusal of the list which allegedly did not bear any signature on some pages or was a list that was presented by either parties. He did not go into the real issue with regard to the proof of actual enrollment of the members. This was germane in order to ascertain the validity of the electoral college as also the claim set up by the petitioners of periodical elections in the past. If the elections claimed by the petitioners in the past have been held on the basis of an electoral college which reflects a different electoral college then any finding in relation to the membership would directly affect the said issue of holding elections within time.
It is, therefore, clear that the Assistant Registrar committed an error in recording findings on the issue of membership that too even only relying on the list of office bearers elected in the proceedings of 6th January, 1991. The Assistant Registrar, therefore, fell into error by holding that there were only 14 valid members and for the reasons stated herein above, the order dated 28th December, 2010 is vitiated.
Accordingly, the order dated 28th December, 2010 passed by the respondent no. 2 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.
The Assistant Registrar shall now proceed to pass the fresh orders in the light of the observations made hereinabove within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. It is further made clear that this Court has remitted the matter to the Assistant Registrar and, therefore, this judgment shall not affect the Management of the institution run by the Society during the interregnum period and the same shall be abide by the outcome of the order passed by the Assistant Registrar.
Dated: 09.02.2011 Akv