IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3950 OF 2001 (MS) V.P. Viahsh …………Petitioner. Versus The Vice Chancellor, Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut and others. …….Respondents. Mr. M.C. Pande, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand. 25th November, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Mr. M.C. Pande, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand/respondent no. 2. None appears for rest of the respondents. The petitioner was erstwhile Secretary of the Society known as Kanhaiya Lal D.A.V. College, Roorkee Haridwar, which was registered under the Societies Registration Act. By means of present writ petition, he has challenged the letter dated 20.6.1994 of the Registrar of the “Chaudhary Charan Singh University Meerut”, whereby one Mr. Surendra Kumar has been recognized as a Secretary of the said society in place of the present petitioner. Brief facts of this case are that the petitioner was elected as a Secretary of the society on 17.8.1987 for a term of three years and consequently before the term could expire, his term was extended for another three years. All the same, this second term was not extended any further and in place of the present petitioner, one Sri Surendra Kumar was elected as Secretary. This dispute was raised by the petitioner before the Deputy Registrar, 2 Firms, Societies and Chits, who referred the matter before to the Prescribed Authority for adjudication on the issue. The Prescribed Authority came to the conclusion that the election of Mr. Surendra Kumar was valid. This order of the Prescribed Authority was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1065 of 2002 (MS) (Old No. 14011 of 1997). This Court vide its order dated 25th November, 2009 has also dismissed the writ petition as it has no force and the order of the Prescribed Authority holding that the election of Mr. Surendra Kumar as Secretary of the Society has been held to be correct. This writ petition consequently is also liable to be dismissed as the main ground in this writ petition was also that the petitioner was a lifelong Secretary, a contention which has already been rejected by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1065 of 2002 (MS). The learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that two persons of a family cannot be members of a society, therefore, Mr. Surendra Kumar could not have become a member of the Society leaving aside becoming a secretary. Since the main ground of the petitioner regarding his continuing as a lifetime Secretary has been rejected, there is no meaningful purpose in adjudicating upon this issue. The writ petition having no force is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 25.11.2009 Rathour