ORDER 1. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. Heard learned counsel on both sides. 2. As agreed to by learned counsel and for the sake of convenience these writ petitions have been heard analogously and this common judgment shall govern all the cases. 3. There is no dispute between the parties that election to the committee of Management had been held on 13th Feb. 1983, that the term of office of the members is three years and that at the said election the petitioner, Nawab Singh was elected as the Manager. Dispute bet ween the parties arose in 1986. 4. According to the petitioner, the election to the committee of Management was held on 23-2-1986 and he was elected as the Manager. Respondent 2, Santosh Kumar, however, claims that election had taken place on 10-2-1986 and he had been elected as the Manager. It appears that both the parties have been litigating before the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Muzaffarnagar, respondent -1, before the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, U.P. Meerut, (hereinafter referred to as the Assistant Registrar), respondent 1 in Writ Petition No. 8727 of 1986, and before this Court. By order dated 22/24-5-1986 the Assistant Registrar recognised respondent Santosh Kumar as the duly elected Manager and upheld the election held on 10-2-1986 as claimed, Registrar's order was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8727 of 1986. The impugned order of the Assistant Registrar was stayed by this court, vide order dated 15-6-1986 and the stay order was confirmed on 25-9-1986. Thereafter by order dated 8-10-1986 the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, respondent 1, directed respondent 2 to hand over charge as manager to the petitioner, vide Annexure 3. However, on 17-2-1986 the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari had recognised the rival committee of Management of which respondent Santosh Kumar claimed to be the manager. This order was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8071 of 1986. On 4-8-1986 this Court dismissed the said writ petition with the observation that the petitioner could seek his remedy in Writ Petition No. 8727 of 1986. The petitioner next filed Writ Petition No. 17990 of 1986 challenging the order of the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari dated 9-10-1986, Annexure 4 whereby he stayed operation of his earlier order dated 8-10-1986, Annexure 3. The petitioner next filed Writ Petition No. 17990 of 1986 challenging the order of the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari dated 9-10-1986, Annexure 4 whereby he stayed operation of his earlier order dated 8-10-1986, Annexure 3. By order dated 24-10-1986 this Court stayed operation of the order of the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari dated 9-10-1986, Annexure 4. Thereafter the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari attested the signature of the petitioner on 8-12-1986 vide Annexure 7. This order dated 8-12-1986 was challenged by respondent Santosh Kumar in Writ Petition No. 20590 of 1986. By Interim Order dated 12-12-1986 of this Court, the order dated 8-12-1986, annexure 7, passed by the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari was stayed. Thereafter by order dated 15-12-1986 the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari attested the signature of respondent Santosh Kumar and this order has been challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 16 of 1987. 5. The dispute between the parties is which election is valid the one held on 10-2-1986 at which respondent Santosh Kumar has been elected as Manager the one held on 23-2-1986, at which the petitioner was elected as Manager? The provisions contained in S. 25, Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) cover disputes regarding the elections before the Assistant Registrar and in such circumstances it was incumbent upon the Assistant Registrar to refer the dispute between the parties to the Prescribed Authority under S. 25(1) of the Act. Instead of doing what he was required to do under the law, the Assistant Registrar has in his order dated 22/24-5-1986 observed that it was open to the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority along with th member of the Society under S. 25(1) of the Act. This approach of the Assistant Registrar was obviously not proper and this is well proved by the series of litigation referred to above. 6. Accordingly, on consideration we set aside the order dated 22/24-5-1986 of the Assistant Registrar (Annexure 1) to Writ Petition No. 8727 of 1986. This approach of the Assistant Registrar was obviously not proper and this is well proved by the series of litigation referred to above. 6. Accordingly, on consideration we set aside the order dated 22/24-5-1986 of the Assistant Registrar (Annexure 1) to Writ Petition No. 8727 of 1986. In order to bring this vexatious litigation to a close at an early date, we direct the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, U. P. Meerut to make a reference of the dispute between the parties regarding the elections according to law to the Prescribed Authority within fifteen days from the date the certified copy of this order is produced before him, forwarding along with the reference a copy of this order. We further direct the concerned prescribed authority to decide the dispute according to law within four months from the date of receipt of the reference from the Assistant Registrar after due notice to both sides and hearing them. Till the decision of the Prescribed Authority the College shall be managed by the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Muzaffarnagar or his nominee who shall not be either petitioner Nawab Singh or respondent Santosh Kumar. All orders relating to attestation and recognition passed from time to time by the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari which form the subject matter of these writ petitions shall abide the result of the decision of the Prescribed Authority. While deciding the dispute the Prescribed Authority shall not be influenced in any manner by any observation of this Court in any of these writ petitions. 7. With the directions as aforesaid these writ petitions are disposed of. All interim orders passed by this Court shall stand vacated with the disposal of these writ petitions. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. Counsel for the parties be given copies of this order on payment of usual charges within three days.