JUDGMENT 1. By means of this writ petition the petitioners, Khapraha Educational Society, Jaunpur, has challenged the impugned order dated 6th August, 1992 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Chits and Societies, Varanasi Region, Varanasi (respondent no. 1) by which in purported exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act (as amended) the said respondent had accepted the list of office bearers submitted by the respondent no. 2 and rejected the list submitted by the petitioner no. 1 through the petitioner no 2. The respondent no. 2 had filed a caveat in this Court end had also filed a counter affidavit to which rejoinder was filed by the petitioners The matter had come up before a Single Judge of this Court for admission The said learned Single Judge, however, felt that in view of the fact that an earlier writ petition pertaining to the same society had keen dismissed by me on 28th April, 1992 as not maintainable, there might be repercussion of the said decision on the present petition and, therefore, the matter may be beared by me. It is thus that this matter has come up before me. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length at the admission stage itself and with the consent of learned counsel the writ petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage 2. In brief, the relevent facts are that the petitioner's society was registered in the year 1962 with the object of running an educational institution which is presently known as Janta Intermediate College, Khapraha, Jaunpur. The Society has a General Body, which is the parent body of the institution, which constitutes a 'Committee of Management of the college and the Committee looks after the affairs of the society. The society has its bye laws by which it is governed. According to the petitioners, last election of the petitioners society was held on 11-6-1989 and again fresh elections were held after about 3 years on 28-5-1992. It has been, alleged that the petitioner no. 2!, Brij Raj Singh, was re-elected as the Secretary of the Society in the said election. It is further alleged that the relevant papers regarding the election proceedings were sent to the respondent no. 1 by the petitioner no. 2 along with a list of the new office-bearers. It appears that one Ram Siromani Tiwari respondent no. 2!, Brij Raj Singh, was re-elected as the Secretary of the Society in the said election. It is further alleged that the relevant papers regarding the election proceedings were sent to the respondent no. 1 by the petitioner no. 2 along with a list of the new office-bearers. It appears that one Ram Siromani Tiwari respondent no. 2, moved an application before the respondent no 1 along with a list of another set of persons alleging that the general body in its meeting held on 5-10-1991 bad removed the petitioner no. 2 from the membership of the Society and thereafter the general body of the Society proceeded to hold elections of the office bearers of the society on 135-12-1991 in which the said Ram Siromani Tiwari was elected as the Manager and one Satya Narain Tiwari as President of the Committee of Management of the Society It was prayed by the respondent no. 2 that the list of office-bearers submitted by him regarding the elections dated 15-12-1991 be recorded by respondent no. 1. A notice was issued by the respondent no 1 to the petitioner no. 2 on the application given by the respondent no. 2 to file his objection, if any, by 18-5-1992, to the application given by the respondent no. 2. A reply to the notice given by the respondent no 1 was submitted by the petitioner no 2 which is Annexure 7' to the writ petition. After considering the reply of the petitioner no. 2 the respondent no. 1 passed the impugned order by which the list of office-bearers submitted by the respondent no.1 was accepted and the list of office-bearers submitted by the petitioner no. 1 was rejected Aggrieved the petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the aforesaid order dated 6-8-92 passed by the respondent no. 1. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the aforesaid order dated 6-8-1992 mainly on two grounds. Firstly, it has been contended that the impugned order is totally without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Assistant Registrar has no authority under the law to decide a dispute with regards to continuance of an office-bearer of the society and it was mandatory to have referred the dispute to the Prescribed Authority under section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. Firstly, it has been contended that the impugned order is totally without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Assistant Registrar has no authority under the law to decide a dispute with regards to continuance of an office-bearer of the society and it was mandatory to have referred the dispute to the Prescribed Authority under section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. Secondly, it has been contended that even on merits the Assistant Registrar has recorded totally incorrect and illegal findings which are against the bye laws of the society and impugned order cannot be legally sustained. 4. Elaborating his first submission learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the facts on the record clearly reveal that the dispute before the respondent no 1 was with regard to continuance of the petitioner no. 2 as the Secretary of the society and the office-bearer of the committee. In his objection before the respondent no.1 the petitionees had challenged the locus standi of the respondent no 2 to convene or hold any meeting of the society and further that the said respondent had no authority under the law to conduct any meeting of the society and remove the petitioner no 2 from the membership and any resolution passed in the said alleged meeting was illegal and null and void. According to the learned counsel the dispute was an election dispute of the society between the parties and, therefore, the provisions of Section 25 (1) of the Societis Registration Act were attracted and the respondent no. 1 had no jurisdiction to decide such a dispute. He ought to have referred the dispute to the Prescribed Authority. In support of his submission learned counsel has cited a number of decisions of this Court in which it has been held that if there is any doubt or dispute regarding the election of any society the Registrar himself has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the same and, therefore, any decision given by him in this regard will be wholly without Jurisdiction. He is in 'aw bound to refer any such dispute to the Prescribed Authority. He is in 'aw bound to refer any such dispute to the Prescribed Authority. In the case of Vijai Narain Singh v. Registrar, Firms, Societies, Chits and Registration, U. P. Lucknow 1981 UP LB EC 308, a Division Bench of this Court has held that it was apparent that the Registrar himself had no jurisdiction to hear and decide any doubt or dispute in respect of an election or continuance in office of an office bearer of such a society. Therefore, any decision given by him in this regard will be wholly without jurisdiction. He is in law bound to refer any such dispute to the prescribed Authority. In the facts of the said vase the petitioner was alleging that he was elected a Manager/Secretary of the society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The respondent no. 5, who was the erstwhile Manager/Secretary, moved a complaint before the Registrar that the renewal had been obtained by fraudulent elections and the petitioner was never elected as Manager/Secretary. The Registrar called upon the petitioner as well as the respondent to produce evidence in support of their respective case and ultimately held respondent no. 5 to be duly elected Manager/Secretary. The said order was challenged before this Court and this Court held that the order was without jurisdiction as the Registrar was bound to refer the matter to the prescribed Authority instead of deciding it himself. Similar view has been taken in the case of Committee of Management v. Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, 1987 UP LB EC 333 and in the case of Purva Bazar Educational Society, Gorakhpur v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Chits and Units, Gorakhpur, 1988 UP LB EC 5i5 similar view has been taken by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of All India Council v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, AIR 1988 Alld. 236 In a recent case of Muslims Welfare Society Machhlisbahr, district Jaunpur v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi, 1991 AWC 1311 , a learned Single Judge relying upon the decision of the Division Bench in the case of All India Council and another (Supra) has taken a similar view. In the last case also there was a dispute between two elected executive bodies in respect of one society. In the last case also there was a dispute between two elected executive bodies in respect of one society. List of members of the executive body was submitted to the Assistant Registrar as required under the provisions of Section 4 of the Act by the disputing parties. The Assistant Registrar in the exercise of the powers under Section 4 of the Act gave opportunity to both the rival claimants and after necessary material was brought on record held that the existing (executive body be given recognition and upheld the proceedings conducted in the meeting in which the said committee was elected. The Court held that the matter could not be considered by the Assistant Registrar in exercise of the powers under section 4 of the Act. The parties had brought a dispute chiming existence of two rival executive bodies of the society ;and in that view of the matter the proviso to Section 4 of the Act would not be applicable and it is Section 25(1) of the Act which specifically dealt with such contingencies providing for effective adjudication by the Prescribed Authority. It was further held that the provisions of Section 25 (1) which exclusively and specifically provided for this purpose can not be nullified by the proviso to Section 4 (1) of the Act the scope of which is very limited in deciding the objections of the dispute in which old office bearers did not countersign the list. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that in the facts of the present case the provisions of Section 25 of the Act would not be applicable as no dispute or doubt had arisen in respect of the election or continuance of the office bearers of the society The respondent no. 2 who was duly elected in the meeting dated 15-12-91 had submitted a list of office bearers as required under section 4 of the Act. On the said list respondent no. 1 had called for the petitioner no. 2 to file his objection, if any, and after the objections were considered, he accepted the list filed by the respondent no. 2 and rejected the list submitted by the petitioner no 2. It has been further argued that the respondent no. On the said list respondent no. 1 had called for the petitioner no. 2 to file his objection, if any, and after the objections were considered, he accepted the list filed by the respondent no. 2 and rejected the list submitted by the petitioner no 2. It has been further argued that the respondent no. 1 could refer a dispute to the Prescribed Authority only in case he felt any doubt that any bonafide dispute had arisen with regard to the said election. It was the satisfaction of the Assistant Registrar whether there was any doubt or dispute between the parties. After hearing the objection of the petitioner no 2, respondent no. 1 was not satisfied that any bonafide dispute had arisen and was satisfied from the papers that Brijraj Singh was rightly and validly removed and the election of the members shown in the list submitted by the respondent no. 2 was borne out from the papers. He rightly accepted the list of office-bearers submitted by the respondent no. 2 invoking his jurisdiction under proviso to Section 4 (1) of the Act and the provisions of Section 25 (1) of the Act was not attracted in the facts of the present case. 5. He has further submitted that if the argument of the counsel for the petitioners is accepted then the provisions of Section 4 of the Act will be rendered meaningless because as soon as the Assistant Registrar will invite objections to the list submitted and any dispute is raised regarding the names given in the list his jurisdiction under section 4 (1) of the Act would cease and he will have to refer the matter under Section 25 (1) of the Art to the prescribed Authority. This could not be the intention of the legislature According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the Assistant Registrar will have to apply his mind and see that if the dispute is imaginary, fanciful and without any basis, he has the power and jurisdiction under Section 4 of the Act in the same manner as the District Inspector of Schools has while exercising powers under Section 16-A (7) of the Intermediate Education Act. In support of his contention he has cited a case of Committee of Management, inter College, Karaunda v. Deputy Director of Education, 1991 (2; DP LB EC 1420. 6. In support of his contention he has cited a case of Committee of Management, inter College, Karaunda v. Deputy Director of Education, 1991 (2; DP LB EC 1420. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has further argued that there being no prohibition under the stature for the Assistant Registrar to decide such matters, prohibition can not be presumed. In support of this submission learned counsel for the respondent hast placed reliance upon a decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Devendra Nath v. IV Additional District Judge, 1977 ARC 475. He has also placed strong reliance on the following observations of Hon. Mehmood, J. in the case of Narsingh v Mangal Dubey, ILR 5 Alld. 163 :- "Courts are not to act upon the principle that every procedure is to be taken as prohibited unless it is expressly provided for by the code but on the converse thereto, that every procedure is to be understood as permissive till it is shown to be prohibited by the law. As a matter of general principle prohibition can not be presumed." On the basis of the aforesaid observation which has been quoted in the case of Devendra Nath (Supra) learned counsel has argued that in the absence Of a specific provision to cover the situation before us it will not necessarily mean that the statute intended to prohibit the Assistant Registrar to proceed in this matter. He has submitted that justice has to be done between the parties and there should not be undue emphasis on technicalities so that the power is cramped and the effectiveness is disminished and the very purpose for which it was constituted is defeated Lastly it has been contended that the decisions cited by the counsel for the petitioners have not considered and rather ignored this aspect of the matter and consequently the Court is not bound to follow the said decisions. In the alternative, it has also been suggested that the matter be referred for consideration to a larger Bench. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the writ petition, I am of the opinion that in the facts of the present case the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent cannot be accepted. For deciding the controversy it will be necessary to determine whether the dispute before the respondent no. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the writ petition, I am of the opinion that in the facts of the present case the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent cannot be accepted. For deciding the controversy it will be necessary to determine whether the dispute before the respondent no. 1 was confined only with regards to the names submitted in the list, removing the name of the life member and questions arising therefrom, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, or something mare which raises the question regarding some election dispute or a dispute of that nature which calls for a decision under section 25 (1) of the Act, To find an answer to this it will be pertinent to refer to the objections filed by the petitioner no. 2 before the respondent no. 1. The said objections have been annexed as Annexure 7 to the writ petition. A bare perusal of the same would reveal that in paragraphs 1 to 7 the: petitioner no. 2 had asserted about the elections of May, 1992 in which he was elected as the Secretary and his committee was elected. In paragraphs 8 to 12 of the said objections the petitioner no. 2 had challenged the membership of the respondent no. 2 and some other members named therein saying that they were not the members of the society and had no right to ca.il a meeting of the general body, hence the alleged meeting of 26-9-91 was void and inoperative and all the subsequent proceedings were consequently illegal and void In paragraphs 13 to 16 of the said objections he had referred to the post litigations and the pending proceeding between the parties From the impugned order, Annexure 8' to the writ petition it is apparent that the respondent no 1 had noticed that there were two rival parties before him each of whom was claiming to be the validly elected body and both of whom had submitted their respective lists. Though in the issues framed by the respondent no 1 he has avoided to frame any issue which could make it appear to be an election dispute but it is obvious that the dispute was not confined to the validity of the lists submitted by the respective parties but went much deeper It had ultimately to be decided whether the meeting which was called for removing the petitioner no 2 or for hoi ting the fresh elections and the consequent it elections which were held on 15-12-91 were vainly convened. The dispute, as already seen above hid been raised in the objections fifed by the petitioner no 2. though purportedly in reply to a notice sent to that party by the respondent no 1 under section 4 (i) of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the issues framed do not show that the Assistant Registrar was deciding a dispute with regards to any election It may be so, but it is always open for the Court to lift the veil and see what is the real dispute which had to be decided. As already observed by me it is apparent that the dispute was not confined to the respective lists submitted by the parties but it touched an election dispute and raised doubts about the membership of certain persons and thus the situation clearly attracted the provisions of Section 25 (1) of the Act. In facts of the present case, therefore, the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, which have been referred to above, were clearly applicable. I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that as there was no specific prohibition in the provisions of Section 4 (1) of the Act, the Assistant Registrar could decide the matter himself. If this interpretation is given then the provisions of Section 25 (1) of the Act would become infructuous and meaningless. The Court has, therefore, to decide the case on the basis of the provisions as contained in the Act and it is not open to the Court to add something to the provisions of Section 4 (1) of the Act to enlarge the jurisdiction or scope of the power exercised by the Registrar under Section 4 (1) of the Act. The Court has, therefore, to decide the case on the basis of the provisions as contained in the Act and it is not open to the Court to add something to the provisions of Section 4 (1) of the Act to enlarge the jurisdiction or scope of the power exercised by the Registrar under Section 4 (1) of the Act. The ruling cited by the learned counsel for the respondent in my opinion, does not apply to the facts of the present case and it also does not call for any reference to be made far consideration of the matter by a larger Bench 7. Before parting with the case it. would also be proper to refer to another submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel had also faintly argued that this Court had already dismissed a writ petition no. 17609 of 1992 filed by the petitioner no. 2 against the decision of the Board of Trustees removing him frost the life membership of the society and as such the present writ petition was not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioners in his reply had submitted that the petitioner no. 2 has given an affidavit before this Court for recalling the said order dated 28-4 -1992 on the ground that he had never filed the said writ petition and some imposter had filed the said writ petition and got the same dismissed to create evidence in this case and to take, advantage of the same before the respondent no. 1 So far as the application for recalling the order dated 28-4-1992 is concerned the same is pending and has not been disposed of so far. However, the said writ petition which has been dismissed by me on 28 4-1992 was dismissed not on merit or on the consideration of the facts of the said case but on the ground that the writ petition was not maintainable against an order passed by a private Trust removing a member. Besides the cause of action in the present writ petition, which is being beard by me is totally different and. therefore, the order dated 28-4-1992 passed by me in the writ petition no 17609 of 1992 will have no effect on the facts of the present case. 8. Besides the cause of action in the present writ petition, which is being beard by me is totally different and. therefore, the order dated 28-4-1992 passed by me in the writ petition no 17609 of 1992 will have no effect on the facts of the present case. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 6-8-1992 passed by the respondent no. 1 is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the respondent no. 1 could not decide the dispute himself but had to make a reference to the prescribed Authority under section 25 (1) of the Act. The impugned order is, therefore;, hereby quashed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case. I direct the Assistant Registrar. Firms, Societies and Chits, U. P., Varanasi (respondent no. 1) to make a reference of the dispute between the parties regarding the elections by which each of them is claiming to be elected, to prescribed Authority within a period of three weeks from the data of recipt of a certified copy of this order produced before him and forward along with the reference a copy of this order to the prescribed Authority. I farther direct the concerned prescribed Authority, to deckle the dispute in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the reference from the Assistant Registrar after due notice to bath sides and hearing them. Till the decision of the prescribed Authority status quo shall be maintained by the parties and whosoever is in effective actual control will remain till the matter is filially decided by the prescribed Authority. While deciding the dispute the prescribed Authority shall not be Influenced in any manner by any observation of this Court made in this order. The writ petition succeeds find is allowed. The impugned order dated 6-8-1992 of the respondent no.1 is quashed. 9. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.