JUDGMENT S. C. Mathur, J. 1. THE question raised by the petitioners in this petition is whether the Registrar, Chit Funds, Firms and Societies, U. P., Lucknow, opposite party No. 1, had the jurisdiction to decide the dispute which heeded by his impugned order dated 8-12-1978, contained in Annexure No. 13 to the writ petition. THE dispute has arisen in the circumstances hereinafter indicated. 2. THE Board of Management, Rajarshi Tandon Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Upadhyapur, Patti, Pratapgarh, was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 on 7-9-1968. It appears that at the time of registration the Memorandum of the Association of the Society and the Rules and Regulations of the Society were also filed with the Registrar. Copies of the Memorandum and the Rules and Regulations have been filed as Annexures Nos. 1-A and 2 to the Writ Petition. Annexure No. 1-A contains the names of the office bearers of the Society; petitioner No. 1 Maha Narayan Pandey is shown as the Manager and Bharath Singh is shown as Secretary and Annexure No. 2 contains the names of nine persons who have been described as founder members of the Society. THEse nine persons are : Sarvashri Ram Raj Shukla, Maha Narayan Pandey, Jagan Nath Tripathi, Bharath Singh, Raj Narayan Pandey, Yamuna Prasad Singh, Raj Pati Pandey, Ram Yaresh Tripathi and Rajit Ram Dubey. Paragraph 4-E of Annexure No. 2 states that the founder members shall be the life members of the Board of Management. Paragraph 8 provides that Maha Narayan Pandey (Petitioner No. 1) shall be the life long Manager of the School, the Board as well as the Managing Committee. It further states that he will be authorised to nominate any person to act as the Manager after him. THEre is no dispute between the parties that upto 5-4-1978, petitioner No. 1 continued to act as Manager of the Institution. THE dispute arose thereafter. According to Sri Meva Ram Tewari, opposite party No. 2 a meeting of the Society was held on 5-4-1978 at which petitioner No. 1 was asked to submit account of the money withdrawn by him and to stop his arbitrariness" in managing the affairs of the Society whereupon on 6-4-1978 petitioner No. 1 submitted his resignation from life membership of the Society and also from life-managership and nominated opposite party No. 2 as his successor. It is further the case of the opposite party No. 2 that the resignation was placed at the meeting of the Managing Committee held on 7-4-1978 when it was accepted and the nomination made by petitioner No. 1 in favour of opposite party No. 2 was also recognised. It is further urged that the Rules of the Society were amended so as to bring them in conformity with Rule 10 (Chha) of Chapter VI of the Basic School Niyamawali and thereafter an application was made to the Registrar, opposite party No. 1 for renewal of Registration and also for recognition of the amended Rules. A new list of the members of the Managing Committee was also sent. Basic Shiksha Adhikari is alleged to have recognised opposite party No. 2 as the member. Against the order of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari recognising opposite party No. 2 as the Manager, petitioner No. 1 preferred appeal to the Regional Deputy Director of Education. THE petitioner No. 1 on 12-5-1978 sent a telegram to the Registrar not to act on the application submitted to him by opposite party No. 2. Despite this telegram renewal of registration was granted to the Society on 31-5-1978 on the basis of the application moved by opposite party No. 2. On 30-6-1978 petitioner No. 1 moved an application before opposite party No. 1 for cancelling the renewal. On this application, the Registrar issued notice to petitioner No. 1 as well as to opposite party No. 2 to substantiate their respective claims. It may be mentioned that before the Registrar the claim of petitioner No. 1 was that he continued to be Manager and the plea of the opposite party No. 2 that he (the petitioner No. 1) had submitted resignation was incorrect. On this basis it was the further claim of petitioner No. 1 that neither the memorandum of the association had been amended nor the Rules nor there had been any change in the composition of the committee of the management. Whlie the application dated 30-6-1978 filed by petitioner no. 1 was still pending before the Registrar, the appeal preferred by petitioner No. 1 before the Regional Deputy Director of Education came up for disposal. Whlie the application dated 30-6-1978 filed by petitioner no. 1 was still pending before the Registrar, the appeal preferred by petitioner No. 1 before the Regional Deputy Director of Education came up for disposal. THE Regional Deputy Director of Education, by his order dated 6-9-1978, set aside the order of the District Basic Education Officer and provided that his own order will be operative till the matter is be decided by the Registrar. In other words the Regional Deputy Director of Education came to the conclusion that the dispute raised by petitioner No. 1 was beyond his cognizance and that it should be decided by the Registrar, opposite party No. J, in accordance with law. Against this order of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, opposite party No. 2 preferred writ petition No. 2082 of 1978 in this Court. THE plea of opposite party No. 2 was that the Regional Deputy Director of Education had no jurisdiction over Basic Education and, therefore, he had no jurisdiction to set aside the order of the Basic Education Officer by which opposite party No. 2 had been recognised as the Manager of the Institution. In this writ petition an application for interim relief was also filed by opposite party No. 2 whereupon the Basic Education Officer was appointed to manage the affairs of the institution during the pendency of the writ petition. This Court while dealing with the application for interim relief took note of the fact that the dispute was already engaging the attention of the Registrar, opposite party No. 1. On 28-11-1978 when the matter came up before this Court it was noticed that the case was fixed before the Registrar on 4-12-1978. THE counsel for the parties made statement that they will not seek any adjournment from the Registrar. On this statement the writ petition was ordered to be listed on 12-12-1978. THEreafter the Registrar passed the impugned order contained in Annexure No. 13 on 8-12-1978. THE writ petition came up before this Court on 14-12-1978 when it was dismissed as infructuous in view of order passed by the Registrar. On 16-1-1979 the present writ petition was filed by Sri Maha Narayan Pandey. In this writ petition Sri Maha Narayan Pandey also impleaded Board of Management, Rajarshi Tandon Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya as petitioner No. 2. This petitioner No. 2 was impleaded through petitioner No. 1 himself. On 16-1-1979 the present writ petition was filed by Sri Maha Narayan Pandey. In this writ petition Sri Maha Narayan Pandey also impleaded Board of Management, Rajarshi Tandon Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya as petitioner No. 2. This petitioner No. 2 was impleaded through petitioner No. 1 himself. In the present writ petition the grievance of the petitioners is that the Registrar could not decide the dispute in respect of the right of petitioner No. 1 to continue in office as Manager of the society which right was claimed by the petitioner but was denied by opposite party No. 1 and, therefore, his order is invalid and without jurisdiction. It was pressed that this dispute could be decided only by the Prescribed Authority under section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act as amended in its application to the State of U. P. through the Societies Registration (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1975 (U. P. Act No. 52 of 1975). At the time of oral arguments this was the only dispute raised by Sri S. L. Varma, learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. THE writ petition has been contested by Mewa Ram Tewari, opposite party No. 2 only. According to him the Registrar has not decided any dispute which falls within the ambit of Section 25 (1) of the Act, but has decided the matter relating to renewal of registration and recognition of the management and of the amended Rules of the Society and, therefore, the order is not beyond the scope of jurisdiction exercisable by the Registrar under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act. On behalf of opposite party No. 2 Sri B. C. Saxena stressed that there was no dispute relating to election of office bearers of the Society. According to the learned counsel the enquiry made by the Registrar was covered by Sections 3 and 4-A of the Societies Registration Act as amended in its application to the State of Uttar Pradesh by Act No. 52 of 1975. It was also pressed that petitioner No. 1 was estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of Registrar as he himself approached the Registrar for the resolution of the dispute. THE plea of estoppel was pressed also on the ground that in writ petition No. 2082 of 1978 petitioner No. 1 had never objected to the jurisdiction of the Registrar to deal with the matter. 4. THE plea of estoppel was pressed also on the ground that in writ petition No. 2082 of 1978 petitioner No. 1 had never objected to the jurisdiction of the Registrar to deal with the matter. 4. BEFORE proceeding further it will be appropriate to reproduce subsection (1) of Section 25 which reads as follows :- "25. Disputes regarding election of office bearers-(1). The Prescribed Authority may, on a reference made to it by the Registrar or by at least one-fourth of the members of a society registered in Uttar Pradesh, hear and decide in summary manner any doubt or dispute in respect of the election, or continuance in office of an office-bearer of such society, and may pass such orders in respect thereof as it deems fit........." (Emphasis supplied) Under the above provision the Prescribed Authority has jurisdiction to decide in a summary manner any doubt or dispute-(1) in respect of the election and (2) or continuance in office of an office bearer. In order, therefore, to attract the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority under this provision it is not necessary that the dispute must relate to election of an office bearer. The dispute may even relate to the continuance in office of an office bearer. It is not the case of opposite party No. 2 that he was elected to the office of the Manager. His case is that he became Manager on the nomination made by petitioner No. i himself. As such there was no dispute before the Registrar in respect of election to the office of Manager. We have to see whether the Registrar has, by his impugned order, resolved any issue or dispute in respect of continuance in office of an office-bearer of the Society. This would require scrutiny of the impugned order passed by the Registrar. 5. IN his impugned order the Registrar formulated the points requiring his determination as follows :- (1) Removal of Mewa Ram Tewari and Bharat Singh from the membership of the Society. (2) Resignation of Maha Narayan Pandey from the office of Manager. (3) Amendment in Smriti Patra and Niyamawali. (4) List of new office bearers of the Society. 6. DEALING with each point separately the Registrar held that removal of Mewa Ram Tewari and Bharat Singh from the membership of the Society has not been established. (2) Resignation of Maha Narayan Pandey from the office of Manager. (3) Amendment in Smriti Patra and Niyamawali. (4) List of new office bearers of the Society. 6. DEALING with each point separately the Registrar held that removal of Mewa Ram Tewari and Bharat Singh from the membership of the Society has not been established. This question arose as according to the petitioner No. 1 these two persons had been removed from the society through a resolution adopted by its members. DEALING with questions nos. 3 and 4 the Registrar held that the amendment in the Smriti Patra and Niyamawali was valid and list of new office-bearers of the Society was also valid. In view of the findings recorded on points No. 3 and 4 the Registrar further held that it was not necessary to decide point No. 2 which related to the resignation of petitioner No. 1 from the office of the Prabandhak. In respect of the amendment of Smriti Patra and Niyamawali the Registrar held that the Basic Education Department had been requiring the petitioner No. 1 to amend the said documents so as to bring them in conformity with law, but petitioner No. 1 was not taking any steps in that behalf. The Registrar further held that the amendment now made in the Smriti Patra and Niyamawali are in accordance with the requirement of law and they are, therefore, valid. The question of amendment of Smriti Patra and Niyamawali is not mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 25 reproduced above. Obviously this question was not one which was required to be decided by the Prescribed Authority. However, point Nos. 2 and 3 are clearly covered by the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 25. Annexure No. 1-A shows that Bharat Singh was Agriculture Secretary. He was, thus, an office bearer of the Society. Implicit in his alleged removal from the membership of the Society was his removal from the office of the Agriculture Secretary. Therefore, one of the questions that arose and which has been decided by the Registrar was whether Bharat Singh could continue to hold office of the Agriculture Secretary. In view of the finding recorded by the Registrar, Bharat Singh continues to hold that office. Therefore, one of the questions that arose and which has been decided by the Registrar was whether Bharat Singh could continue to hold office of the Agriculture Secretary. In view of the finding recorded by the Registrar, Bharat Singh continues to hold that office. Again there was dispute as to whether petitioner No. 1 continue to hold office of the Manager or the said office had devolved upon opposite party No. 2 on the basis of the alleged nomination made by petitioner No. 1. This dispute became necessary to be decided in view of the new list of the office bearers submitted to the Registrar by opposite party No. 2. The new list could be accepted or rejected only after recording finding on the disputed question mentioned hereinbefore. In other words, point No. 4 formulated by the Registrar required determination of the question whether petitioner No. 1 continued to hold office of the Manager or he ceased to hold that office. This question was clearly covered by sub-section (1) of Section 25. The Registrar, of course, held that it was not necessary to decide the question of resignation, but if he had entered into the factual controversy raised in this regard by the parties it would have involved determination of the question whether petitioner No. 1 continued to hold office of the Manager or ceased to hold the office by resigning from the office and nominating opposite party No. 2 as his successor. This question was also necessary to be decided as even after amendment of the Rules, Petitioner No. 1 would continue to hold the office till fresh elections took place, unless he resigned. In view of the discussion herein the Registrar proceeded to decide a part of the dispute which did not fall within his jurisdiction. Reference under sub-section (1) of Section 25 could be made by one-fourth of the members of the Society as well as by the Registrar. In the present case no reference was made to the Prescribed Authority by the members of the Society. But once it came to the notice of the Registrar that a dispute which could be decided by the Prescribed Authority alone had arisen between the parties, he should have referred the matter to the Prescribed Authority instead of assuming jurisdiction in himself to decide the said dispute. 7. But once it came to the notice of the Registrar that a dispute which could be decided by the Prescribed Authority alone had arisen between the parties, he should have referred the matter to the Prescribed Authority instead of assuming jurisdiction in himself to decide the said dispute. 7. IN view of Section 3 of the Registration of Societies Act the memorandum of association and rules are required to be filed with the Registrar at the time of the registration of the Society. Under Section 4-A changes made in the rules of the Society are required to be intimated to the Registrar within thirty days of the change. Where a dispute was raised with regard to the amendment in the Smriti Patra and Niyamawali, the Registrar had to decide whether such change or amendment had in fact taken place. This jurisdiction could, therefore, be exercised by the Registrar under section 3 read with Section 4-A of the Act. Section 3-A deals with renewal of registration. This matter also is required to be dealt with by the Registrar himself. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Registrar on point No. 3 cannot be challenged on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The order of the Registrar so far as it relates to this point cannot, therefore, be quashed, but it will have to be quashed so far as it relates to matters covered by point Nos. 1, 2 and 4. The view taken by us is in accord with view expressed in Vijai Narain Singh v. Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits Registration, U. P. Lucknow, 1981 UP LB and EC 308. 8. IN view of above, the writ petition is partly allowed, and a writ of Certiorari is issued quashing the order of the Registrar, Chit Funds, Firms and Societies, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, dated 8-12-1978 contained in Annexure No. 13 so far as it relates to the findings recorded on points No. 1, 2 and 4. The order of the Registrar so far as it relates to point No. 3 is not disturbed. Further a writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the Registrar, opposite party No. 1 to refer the dispute covered by points No. 1, 2 and 4 to the Prescribed Authority referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Act. Further a writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the Registrar, opposite party No. 1 to refer the dispute covered by points No. 1, 2 and 4 to the Prescribed Authority referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Act. IN view of the partial success of the petitioners, the costs of this petition shall be easy. INterim order, if any, shall stand discharged. Petition partly allowed.