JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - These five writ petitions are between the same parties and questions raised in ore writ petition has its repercussion on the other or others we, therefore, propose to decide them by means of a common judgment. 2. Before deciding them, the facts relevant may very briefly be stated. There is a Society known as Sri Paramhans Educational Society, Majhole in the district of Ballia. This was registered under Societies Registration Act in the year 1954. The Society was established by late Sri Paramhans Tiwari, Rules and Regulations of Sri Paramhans Educational Society lay down the wholesome Scheme for membership, term of office, removal of members etc. etc. 3. It is provided in para 1 of the Regulations that the Society shall be run by a Board of Trustees and a Management Committee. The function of the former would be legislative and that of latter executive. The Board shall consists of members as under : - 1. Founders, 2. Patrons, and 3. Life Members. This clause provided that founders, who were life members had started the Society. 4. Clause 3 deals with office bearers. It provided : 1. Chairman, 2. Vice-Chairman, and 3. Secretary. 5. Paramhans Tiwari was the life member Chairman of the Trust and Sri Ramanand Tiwari was the life long Secretary. It appears that some time in 1960 or 1961 Paramhans Tiwari fell ill. In his place Harbans Tiwari was functioning. Ultimately, Paramhans Tiwari died in 1964. For a long time, there were no disputes in the Society. In 1975, the Society Registration Act was amended. Its registration was applied for by Harbans Tiwari along with the list of Board of Trustees and its office bearers. Another application for registration was made in the name of Paramhans Educational Society through Remanand Tiwari. The Prescribed Authority took, the evidence of the parties on affidavits and held that Horbans Tiwari was the successor of Parainhans Tiwari having been nominated by the latter. He further found that Ramanand Tiwari has since resigned from the Society-ship, he had no right left. Ultimately, the Prescribed Authority directed for the issue of registration in the name of Harbans Tiwari and the members of the Board of Trustees, the list of which had been submitted by him. This order had been passed on 27th September, 1980. He further found that Ramanand Tiwari has since resigned from the Society-ship, he had no right left. Ultimately, the Prescribed Authority directed for the issue of registration in the name of Harbans Tiwari and the members of the Board of Trustees, the list of which had been submitted by him. This order had been passed on 27th September, 1980. Against the said order, Paramhans Educational Society through Ramanand Tiwari tiled Writ Petition No. 8637 of 1980. The Writ Petition was admitted and on October 8, 1980 a stay order was granted. On 6th August, 1981, this stay order was vacated. 6. Upon the vacation of the said stay order Harbans Tiwari approached the Registrar Firms, Societies and Chats, U.P. Lucknow and represented to him that as the stay order granted by the High Court had been vacated, he was entitled to the registration being granted in his name, on 20th August, 1981, the Registrar found that due to the vacation of the stay order, Harbans Tiwari was entitled to registration and directed for the issuance of the same. Challenging the said order, Pramhans Educational Society through Ramanand Tiwari has filed Writ Petition no. 10767 of 81. 7. These two writ petitions essentially are in respect of registration of Society. Three other writ petitions which are 3530 of 1977, 9467 of 1980 and 10252 of in respect of the Committee oi Management of the Society, which runs the Intermediate College. 8. It has already been stated above that Paramhans Educational Society, Majholi was running an institution. For that purpose, Committee of Management had been constituted. There was a dispute between the parties in regard to this Committee of Management. 9. On 13-8-1977, the District Inspector of Schools accorded recognition to the Committee of Management constituted with Surya Narain Tiwari as its manager. Upon recognition being given, a dispute arose between Surya Narain Tiwari and Ramanand Tiwari on the one hand and Harbans Tiwari on the other. Harbans Tiwari claimed that neither was Surya Narain Tiwari elected as President nor was Ramanand Tiwari chosen as that Secretary of the Committee of Management. He claimed himself to be the Manager. On 13-8-77, the District Inspector of Schools held that pending disposal of the dispute before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Ballia, for registration, the accounts would be operated by the District Inspector of School himself. He claimed himself to be the Manager. On 13-8-77, the District Inspector of Schools held that pending disposal of the dispute before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Ballia, for registration, the accounts would be operated by the District Inspector of School himself. Against the direction of single operation of the accounts of the College contained in the order dated 13-8-77, Surya Narain Tiwari made a representation before the District Inspector of Schools. Upon the objection being taken, the District Inspector of Schools by means of his order dated 17th August, 1977, cancelled the order dated 13th August, 1977, and said that the order dated 13th August, 1977 recognising the Manager of the Committee of which Surya Narain Tiwari was the Manager, would remain in force. Aggrieved by the said order of the District Inspector of Schools. Harbans Tiwari filed Writ Petition No. 3530 of 1977 in this Court and sought quashing of the orders dated 13-8-77 and 17-8-77. He obtained a stay order on 28th September, 1977, staying operation of the two orders dated 13th August, 1977 and 17th August, 1977. The stay order was contested by Surya Narain Tiwari. Subsequently, on 27-1-1978, the stay order was vacated by Hon. P.N. Goel, J. 10. It, however, appears that Surya Narain Tiwari and Ramdayal Singh again approached the District Inspector of Schools for recognition of the Committee of Management on the ground that a fresh election had taken place on 18-6-80 in which Dr. Ram Dayal Singh had been elected as President and Surya Narain Tiwari as Manager. On 21st June, 1980, recognition was given by the District Inspector of Schools to the Committee of Management of which Surya Narain Tiwari was the Manager. He also attested his signature. Thereafter, Harbans Tiwari approached the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia in pursuance of the order of the Prescribed Authority The District Inspector of Schools reviewed his order and accorded sanction to the Committee of Management of Harbans Tiwari. Challenging this order of the District Inspector of Schools, the Committee of Management headed by Surya Narain Tiwari has filed Writ Petition no. 9467 of 1980. 11. On 6-8-1981, the High Court vacated the stay order granted in Writ Petition No. 9467 of 1980 by which the operation of the order of the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia dated 4-10-80 Communicated to Surya Narain Tiwari by letter dated 6-10-80 had been suspended. 9467 of 1980. 11. On 6-8-1981, the High Court vacated the stay order granted in Writ Petition No. 9467 of 1980 by which the operation of the order of the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia dated 4-10-80 Communicated to Surya Narain Tiwari by letter dated 6-10-80 had been suspended. Upon the vacation of the stay order, Harbans Tiwari approached the District Inspector of School for recognition of his Committee of Management. In pursuance of the application of Harbans Tiwari, the District Inspector of Schools on 7-8-1981, passed the order recognising him as the Manager. This has been challenged by means of Writ Petition No. 10252 of 1981. 12. From the facts stated above, it would appear that the complaint of Harbans Tiwari about the invalid recognition of Surya Narain Tiwari as Manager in the year 1977, is the subject-matter of Writ Petition No. 3530 of 1977 whereas a similar complaint of recognition of Surya Narain as the Manager of the Committee of Management by the District Inspector of Schools is the subject-matter of Writ Petition Nos. 9467 of 80 and 10252 of 1981. 13. In the Writ Petition No. 3530 of 77, the ground taken was that the recognition order dated 13th August, 1977, subsequently, amended by order dated 17-8-77 was invalid as the District Inspector of Schools had no power to make that order without affording an opportunity to the petitioner of that case (Harbans Tiwari). 14. In Writ Petition No. 9467 of 80, the complaint of Surya Narain is of a similar nature. He has sought quashing of the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 4th October, 1980 communicated to him by letter dated 6-10-80 n the ground that the same was liable to be quashed as it had been passed behind his back and without any notice. The petitioners have further alleged that the District Inspector of Schools has no power to review his earlier order dated 4-10-1980. 15. In the third Writ Petition No. 10252 of 1981 the complaint has been made by Surya Narain Tiwari for quashing of the orders of 1977 which, according to him, had been made behind his back. The grievance was that this order had been made under denial of natural justice. 16. In all these three writ petitions, the question of validity of the elections has to be decided afresh after affording opportunity to the parties. The grievance was that this order had been made under denial of natural justice. 16. In all these three writ petitions, the question of validity of the elections has to be decided afresh after affording opportunity to the parties. The parties were not given any opportunity of hearing. The proper course for the District Inspector of Schools was to have passed orders In favour of one party or the other after giving opportunity to the concerned parties. As no opportunity has been given, the orders impugned by means of this writ petition are liable to be set aside. 17. During the pendency of these writ petitions, the Legislature has amended U.P. Intermediate Education Act by inserting Section 16-A. This confers jurisdiction on the Deputy Director of Education to adjudicate a dispute between rival Committee of Management. Since these three cases would now go to the Deputy Director of Education under Section 16-A for decision by him, he will give opportunity to the parties to file their written statements and to lead evidence in support of their cases. After having given opportunity to the parties he will decide the dispute in accordance with law. 18. So far as Writ Nos. 8637 of 80 and 10767 of 1981, are concerned, the dispute is about the Paramhans Educational Society. The impugned orders were passed by the Prescribed Authority appointed under the Societies Registration Act. Sri K.N. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for Harbans Tiwari, showed to us the copy of the registration which has been recently granted to his client. The period of registration is expiring in October, 1981. Admittedly, the party which claims itself to be entitled for registration will have to apply for its renewal. As the period for registration is expiring, no useful purpose would be served by adjudicating upon the merits of the controversies raised by the two sides. The proper thing appears to be to permit the parties to raise the disputes before the Registrar and if the Registrar is satisfied that a dispute arises between the parties he may refer the same to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Registration of Societies Act. Upon the dispute being raised, the Prescribed Authority will decide the same in accordance with law. 19. Upon the dispute being raised, the Prescribed Authority will decide the same in accordance with law. 19. Before we conclude, we wish to note that several arguments were advanced on behalf of the parties involved in the present litigation, we have not discussed those points as it is not necessary to do so. There are specific forums for adjudication. The parties would be entitled to raise them before those authorities. 20. Subject to the above, Writ Petition Nos. 3530 of 1977 and 9467 of 80 succeed and are allowed. The impugned orders of the District Inspector of Schools are quashed and the Deputy Director o Education is directed to decide the same afresh under Section 16-A in accordance with law. 21. Writ Petition No. 10252 of 81 is only Consequential of the aforesaid two writ petitions. The controversy involved in this petition would also be decided by the Deputy Director of Education. This petition should be deemed to have been disposed of subject to what has been said above. 22. Subject to what we have said above, Writ Petition Nos. 8637 of 80 of 10767 of 1981 and dismiss.d. In the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs.