D. K. SETH, J. In this case the petitioner obtained renewal of registra tion of the concerned Society. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had alleged that the said renewal was obtained fraudulently by mis-leading the Regis trar, inasmuch as the petitioner had no right to obtain renewal. The renewal obtained by the petitioner was cancelled. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for respondents No, 2 and 3 that thereafter renewal of the registration of the Society was granted to the said respondent Nos. 2 and 3. He further contends that the said renewal having expired, further application has been made by the said respondents for renewal of the registration of the said Society, which is pending. Before cancelling the registration the renewal of registration was obtained by the petitioner and a notice to show cause was issued on 16-9-1991 which was challenged by means of writ petition No. 29879 of 1991, since been disposed of by an order dated 12-5-1992 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) directing the Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits to consider as to whether there is any existence of genuine dispute and if so, to refer the same to the Pres cribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. By an order dated 20-6-1992 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition) the Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits held that there was no such genuine dispute which can be referred under Section 25 of the Act and the dispute was squarely covered under Section 12-D of the said Act and, therefore, he had decided the same himself. 3. Against the aforesaid order, second writ petition, being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23970 of 1992 was moved. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 22-10-1992 (Annexure 11 to the writ petition) directing the Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, to find out if there is any genuine dispute about the office bearers of the Society then he should refer the matter under Section 25 of the Act to the Prescribed Authority in terms of the order dated 12-5-1992. Thereafter by an order dated 26- 11-1992 the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits once again held that the same was not disputed within the meaning of Section 25 of the Registration Act and, therefore, had decided the same himself, as a dispute within the meaning of Section 12-D of the said Act. It is against this order the present writ petition has been moved. 4. Dr. R. G. Padia, alongwith Prakash Padia, appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the dispute, by no stretch of imagination can be termed as a dispute within the meaning of Section 12-D of the said Act. Inasmuch as in order to decide the genuineness of the person claiming renewal the scope of determination encroached in the domain of deciding the question of eligibility of a person to continue as office bearers, which ultimately goes to the very root to decide as to whether a person has been genuinely elected or not and thereby the same walks away from the domain of Section 12-D of the said Act and falls within the realm of Section 25 of the Act. According to him the scope of Section 12-D is limited only to the question of cancellation of registration or the cancellation of renewal obtained by fraud and mis-representation and such cancellation is in respect of the Society itself and not in respect of a particular group. Here, admit tedly, the registration of the Society has not as such been cancelled but the registration obtained by the petitioner was cancelled and the registration was renewed to respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Therefore, it was decided as to who are entitled to get renewal. Therefore, he submits that the questions boils down to the determination of eligibility of a person entitled to get renewal, namely, as to who have been really elected as office bearers of the Society and who could obtain such renewal. Therefore, the Registrar, could not have any jurisdiction to decide the same. 5. Sri C. K. Parekh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respon dent Nos. 2 and 3 on the other hand contends that there is no question of deciding any dispute with regard to the election or continuance as office bearers. It was a simple case of cancellation of renewal of registration obtained by the petitioner by practising fraud and mis-representation. Sri C. K. Parekh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respon dent Nos. 2 and 3 on the other hand contends that there is no question of deciding any dispute with regard to the election or continuance as office bearers. It was a simple case of cancellation of renewal of registration obtained by the petitioner by practising fraud and mis-representation. Therefore the simple question was that as to whether renewal was obtained by fraud and if so whether the same should be cancelled or not. Here is this case it was found that the renewal was obtained by fraud and, there fore, the same was cancelled. According to him, in order to decide the said question, the Registrar may go into incidental or these questions and that will not result in deciding the dispute with regard to election or continuance of any person as office bearers. 6. Dr. Padia in support of his contentions has relied on the decision referred to in the case of Abhay Grasth Gramin Jan Sangathan Kusmikhahn v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi Region, Varanasi, 1990 (1) UPLBEC 480 ; Muslim Welfare Society v. The Assistant Ragistrar, Firms Society and Chits, 1991 (18) ALR 339 and Khapraha Educational Society v. Asstt. Registrar, Firms, Chits and Societies, Varanasi Region, Varanasi, 1993 (2) UPLBEC 890. On the other hand Sri Parekh has relied on the case of Shambhu Kumar Tripathi v. The Assistant Registrar, Firms and Societies and Chits, AIR 1994 All 209 and Shiksha Samiti Degree College, Garua Maksudpur v. Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, U, P. , Lucknow, AIR 1990 All 110 . 7. In the present case the admitted position is that the petitioner has been claiming to be Committee of Management, entitled to get renewal and had obtained renewal which was cancelled. On the other hand the respon dent Nos. 2 and 3 claim themselves to be validly elected Committee of Management and that renewal was obtained by the petitioner by practising fraud and they are not validly elected Committee of Management and, therefore, the renewal obtained by them was rightly cancelled and the renewal of registration of the Society was validly granted to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. This very fact clearly shows that there was no cancellation of registration of the Society and on the other hand it was a case as to which group should get renewal. 2 and 3. This very fact clearly shows that there was no cancellation of registration of the Society and on the other hand it was a case as to which group should get renewal. Therefore, the question really boils down as has rightly been contended by Sri Padia, as to which group is entitled to get renewal namely, there being a dispute between the two rival claimants as to who is eligible to continue as office bearer. In order to decide such a dispute as contended rightly by Dr. Padia it is the case where election of two groups is to be determined. This cannot be said that this was the simple case of cancellation of registration as contemplated within provision of Section 12-D of the said Act. In order to appreciate the situation it is necessary to refer to Section 82-D which is quoted below :- "12-D. Registrars power to cancel registration in certain circum stances.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act the Registrar may, by order in writing, cancel the registration of any Society on any of the following grounds- (a) that the registration of the Society or of its name or change of name contrary to the provisions of this Act or of any other law for the time being in force; (b) that its activities or proposed activities have been or are or will be subversive of the objects of the Society or opposed to public policy ; (c) that the registration or the certificate of renewal has been obtained by mis-representation or fraud : Provided that no orders of cancellation of registration of any Society shall be passed until the Society has been given a reasonable opportunity of altering its name or object or of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to its (2) An appeal against an order made under sub-section (1) may be preferred to the Commissioner of the Division in whose juris diction the Headquarter of the Society lies, within one month from the date of commencement of such order. (3) The decision of the Commissioner under sub-section (2) shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court. " 8. (3) The decision of the Commissioner under sub-section (2) shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court. " 8. Section 12-D deals with the Registrars power to cancel registra tion in certain circumstances which opens with the word that the Registrar, may by order in writing, cancel the registration of any Society on any 01" the grounds, enumerated thereunder. One of such ground is that the regis tration or the certificate of renewal has been obtained by misrepresentation or fraud. Therefore, it is cancellation of registration and not of renewal. The Registrar really cancel the registration on the ground that either regis tration or certificate of renewal was obtained by mis-representation or fraud. The said section does not contemplate as to whether renewal certificate should be granted to one or the other groups. The moment it comes to the question of granting certificate of renewal to one or the other group it slips away from the domain of Section 12-D of the Act and steps into the realm of the dispute relating to the entitlement of one or the other group to continue as office bearer, namely, going to the root of question of election of on one or the other group within the moaning of Section 25 of the Act. 9. In order to appreciate the situation it is necessary to get Section 25 of the said Act quoted below :- "25. 9. In order to appreciate the situation it is necessary to get Section 25 of the said Act quoted below :- "25. Disputes regarding election of office bearers.- (1) The Prescribed Authority may on a reference made to it by the Registrar by at least one-fourth of the members of a Society registered in Uttar Pradesh, hear and decide in a 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 : Provided that the election of an office bearer shall be set aside where the Prescribed Authority is satisfied- (a) that any corrupt practice has been committed by such office bearer; or (b) that the nomination of any candidate has been improperly rejected ; or (c) that the result of the election in so as it concerns such office bearer has been materially affected by the improper accept ance of any nomination or by the improper reception refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void or by any non-compliance with the provisions of any rules of the Society. " The said section empowers the Prescribed Authority on a reference by the Registrar to decide in a summary manner any doubt or dispute in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office bearer of such Society. Therefore it is only the Prescribed Authority who can decide such dispute and the Registrar is only instrumental in referring such dispute to the Prescribed Authority. The Registrar, cannot have jurisdiction exceeding that of making a reference to the Prescribed Authority. In the facts and circumstances of the present case there is doubt or dispute in respect of continuance in office of the office bearers, namely, the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as to who could obtain renewal or a disputes between the two rival groups as evinced hereinbefore. 10; Now so far as the contention of Sri Parekh that in effect it was only cancellation of renewal of registration and for such a decision that was arrived at, was not a decision with regard to the election or continuance of office bearers. But the decision arrived as to whether certificate of renewal was obtained by fraud or mis-representation. 10; Now so far as the contention of Sri Parekh that in effect it was only cancellation of renewal of registration and for such a decision that was arrived at, was not a decision with regard to the election or continuance of office bearers. But the decision arrived as to whether certificate of renewal was obtained by fraud or mis-representation. The facts revealed does not support the contention of Sri Parekh, particularly when here regis tration of the Society was not cancelled. Therefore Section 12-D of the said Act is not attracted and, therefore, decision as to which group is eligible to obtain renewal is not incidental for the purpose of cancelling the registration on the ground that certificate of renewal was obtained by fraud or mis-representation. On the other hand the Registrar had proceeded to decide as to which group is entitled to obtain renewal and had granted renewal to one of the group and thereby he has decided that one group is entitled to continue as office bearer. This very decision brings it out of the scope of Section 12-D of the Act. 11. In the case of Abhay Grasth Gramln Jan Sangathan Kusmikhalan (supra) it was held that the Registrar had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute with regard to the election of Society and as soon it comes to such question the Registrar has no option but to refer the same to the Prescribed Authority and any order deciding such dispute by the Registrar is illegal. 12. In the case of Muslim Welfare Society (supra) it was held that as soon two claims are there claiming existence of two rival executive bodies of Society, in such matter proviso to Section 4 does not provide any procedure for deciding such issue and this brings such dispute within the ambit of Section 25 which specially deals with such contingencies and the Assistant Registrar could not have jurisdiction to decide such issue and the only authority he can, has to refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority. 13. In the case of Khapraha Educational Society (supra) all other decisions holding the field have been considered. In the said case the juris diction of Assistant Registrar was clearly defined and the distinction with regard to the dispute falling within the ambit of Section 4 (1) and those within Section 25 had been defined and has been distinguished. 13. In the case of Khapraha Educational Society (supra) all other decisions holding the field have been considered. In the said case the juris diction of Assistant Registrar was clearly defined and the distinction with regard to the dispute falling within the ambit of Section 4 (1) and those within Section 25 had been defined and has been distinguished. In order to arrive at the real situation it was held in the said case that the court may lift the veil and to see for itself as to what is the real dispute. 14. The view I have taken above, finds support from the above citations. On the other hand the decision in the case of Shiksha Samiti Degree College, Garua Maksudpur (supra) does not support the contention of Mr. Parekh to the extent he has attempted to draw inspiration therefrom. In the said case the scope of dispute within the meaning of Section 12-D of the Act has been considered and fit falls within the conditions referred to in clauses (a) to (c) then only Registrar can cancel the registration and the jurisdiction of the Registrar is confined simply to find out the fact of pass ing resolution by the Committee of Management and nothing more and nothing less and to find out as to whether amendment made in the bye-laws falls within the mischief of clauses (a) to (c) of Section 12-A of the Act. In the given facts and circumstances of the case it is materially different from that of the present, case. 15. So far as the judgment in the case of Shambhu Kumar Tripathi (supra) is concerned it is well established principle that in order to decide as to whether registration of the Society should be cancelled or not on the grounds mentioned in clause (c) of Section 12-D of the Act, the Registrar has power to incidentally decide certain questions for the purposes of arriv ing at the conclusion and that established principle has been repeated in the said case of Shambhu Kant Tripathi (supra ). At the same time it has also sounded a note of warning that even incidentally deciding such issue the Registrar has no power to actually go into such issue specifically visualised by Section 25 of the Act. In the said case renewal was sought or without counter signature of the old members. At the same time it has also sounded a note of warning that even incidentally deciding such issue the Registrar has no power to actually go into such issue specifically visualised by Section 25 of the Act. In the said case renewal was sought or without counter signature of the old members. Sri Parekh attempted to contend that in this case also renewal was sought to be obtained without signature of the old members. But at the same time here it was not the case of cancellation of registration of the Society itself on the ground that certificate of renewal was obtained by mis-representation or fraud. On the other hand it is a case where certificate of renewal was granted to one or other group and thereby recognising one or the other group, as office bearer, entitled to continue in office and thereby deciding the question as to which group is entitled to manage the Society. Therefore, in my view, the facts and circumstances of the present case the dispute assumes ingredients as contemplated under Section 25 of the Act. Therefore the ratio decided in the said case cannot be attracted though one of the grounds, as suggested by Sri Parekh may be common, in the facts and circumstances of both the cases. But the present case is materially different as soon as it comes down to the question of granting certificate of renewal to one or the other rival groups. 16. A reading of Annexure 20 to the writ petition indicates that the Registrar had gone into the questions as to whether one of the parties, namely, the petitioner had a right to call election and to hold election. He has also decided the question that the petitioner had no right to call election and hold election, therefore, the election held by him cannot be accepted, Therefore, it is apparent that he has gone into the questions of validity of election as has been claimed to have been held by the petitioner. 17. In that view of the matter the impugned order as contained in Annexure 20 to the writ petition cannot be sustained and, as such, quashed. Accordingly a writ of certiorari do issue. 17. In that view of the matter the impugned order as contained in Annexure 20 to the writ petition cannot be sustained and, as such, quashed. Accordingly a writ of certiorari do issue. A writ of mandamus do issue directing the Registrar to refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority within four weeks from the date a certified copy of the operative part of this order is produced before the respondent No. 1. As soon as such refer ence is made the Prescribed Authority shall decide the same within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such reference, after affording sufficient opportunity to either of the parties, in accordance with law. 18. The writ petition is as such allowed. There will be, however, no order as to costs. Petition allowed. .