SUDHIR NARAIN J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 17. 6. 1996 passed by Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits. Azamgarh, respondent No. 1, whereby he issued renewal certificate of registration of the society in favour of Chandra Bhushan Dubey respondent No. 2. ( 2 ) BHARTIYA Vidyalaya Sabha is a registered society under the Societies registration Act, 1860. It runs the institution known as Bhartiya Uchchatar madhyamik Vidyalaya, Sultanpur Dariyaoganj, Jaunpur (hereinafter referred to as the institution ). The last election of Committee of Management of the society in question was held on 3. 7. 1993 in which Chandra Bhushan Dubey, respondent No. 2 was elected as President and Ghanshyam Tiwari, petitioner no. 2 was elected as Manager of the society as well as the Committee of management of the institution. The period of the renewal of the society was to expire on 9. 10. 1995. Petitioner No. 2 applied for renewal of the society in question on 7. 10. 1995 submitting the list of 64 members. Respondent No. 2, the President of the Society, also filed application for renewal of the society before the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh, respondent No. 1. Petitioner No. 2 filed objection to the application filed by respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 2 also died objection against the application filed by petitioner No. 2. ( 3 ) THERE were two controversies raised before respondent No. 1. Petitioner No. 2 stated that a resolution was passed by the general body on 18. 6. 1995 and 44 new members of the society were enrolled. This was disputed by respondent No. 2. It was contended that enrolment of new members was invalid. The second controversy was as to whether petitioner no. 2 had been removed by the members of the society from the membership in a meeting alleged to have been held on 24th September, 1995. Respondent no. 1, by his order dated 17. 6. 1996 held that the enrolment of 44 members by petitioner No. 2 was invalid. As regards the removal of petitioner No. 2 from the membership in the meeting held on 24. 9. 1995 was also invalid. The renewal certificate was issued in the name of respondent No. 2 as President of the Society. This order has been challenged by the petitioners in this petition. As regards the removal of petitioner No. 2 from the membership in the meeting held on 24. 9. 1995 was also invalid. The renewal certificate was issued in the name of respondent No. 2 as President of the Society. This order has been challenged by the petitioners in this petition. ( 4 ) THE main controversy is regarding membership of the society. The membership of the society is governed by its bye-laws. Bye- law No. 2 indicates that Chandra Bhushan Dubey is the patron member of the society. Bye-law no. 3 provides for two kinds of members (i) Ordinary Members and (ii)distinguished members. The person who donate Rs. 1,000 or property worth rs. 2,000 or invest more amount for construction of rooms in the school were entitled to be enrolled as distinguished members and those who deposit Rs. 111 or more are to be called as ordinary members. It was further provided that applicants have to submit the membership fee along with an application to the society. Para 7 of the bye- laws provides for the duties and functions of the general body. Clause Kha provides that general body can enrol new members or to remove the members for certain reasons. ( 5 ) GHANSHYAM Tiwari who was acting, as Manager of the Society claimed that a meeting of the general body took place on 18. 6. 1995 in which 44 new members were enrolled. The convening of this meeting has been challenged by Sri Chandra Bhushan Dubey who was the President of the Society on the ground that it was covered without his permission. Clause (c) of bye-law No. 12 provides that, permission of the President is required for convening a meeting of the general body. The assistant Registrar, respondent No. 1, held that enrolment of these 44 members alleged to be made by the general body on 18. 6. 1995 was invalid for three reasons. Firstly, there was no application submitted by these members along with membership fee which was one of the requirements for admission to the membership of the society. The membership fee was realised Rs. 300 per member instead of Rs. Ill which was the only requirement for enrolment. Thirdly, the permission of the President of the society was not obtained before convening the meeting of the general body. The membership fee was realised Rs. 300 per member instead of Rs. Ill which was the only requirement for enrolment. Thirdly, the permission of the President of the society was not obtained before convening the meeting of the general body. It was further pointed out that the membership fee was not deposited in the bank in the name of the society but a separate account was opened in the name of the Manager. Bhartiya Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Sultanpur, dariyao Ganj, Jaunpur on 12th September, 1995 and in the said account the membership fee of these newly enrolled members was deposited. The amount is alleged to have been received prior to or on the date of meeting held on 18. 6. 1995 but the amount was deposited in the Bank on 12. 9. 1995 which created doubt on the actual date of deposit of the amount by the persons desiring to be admitted as members of the society. Respondent No. 1 further doubted that any meeting took place on 18. 6. 1995. ( 6 ) SRI Ashok Khare, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to decide the controversy regarding membership of the society. In case there is any dispute regarding membership of the society, the matter should have been referred to the Prescribed Authority by respondent No. 1 under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. He has placed reliance upon the decision All India Council and another v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi Region, Varanasi and another, AIR 1988 All 236 , wherein it was held that if a dispute is raised with regard to the election or continuation in. office of an office bearer of the society registered under the Societies Registration Act, the same has to be decided only by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) and not by the Registrar. A similar view was taken in Abhay Grasth Gramin Jan Sangathan Kusmi khalan and another v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi region, Varanasi and another. (1990) 1 UPLBEC 480. He further placed reliance on the decision Managing Committee, Shri Sanatan Dharm Sanskrit pathshala and another v. State of U. P. and others, AIR 1984 All 310 , wherein it was found that the dispute raised was covered by Section 25 of the Act and not under Section 12-D of the Act. (1990) 1 UPLBEC 480. He further placed reliance on the decision Managing Committee, Shri Sanatan Dharm Sanskrit pathshala and another v. State of U. P. and others, AIR 1984 All 310 , wherein it was found that the dispute raised was covered by Section 25 of the Act and not under Section 12-D of the Act. This case has no application to the facts of the present case. ( 7 ) SECTION 3 (a) of the Societies Registration Act provides for renewal of certificate of registration. A certificate of registration issued under Section 3 of the Act remains in force- for a period of 5 years. It can be renewed on an application made to the Registrar. An applicant is further to submit the list of members of the managing body as provided under Section 4 of the Act. The members of the managing body are elected by general body of the society. The registrar can take a decision as to who are the members of the society before granting renewal certificate of registration of the society. There is no statutory bar prohibiting the Registrar from taking such decision unless the dispute relates to election or continuance in office of an office bearer of the society. It can examine as to who were validly enrolled as members of the society. The registrar has to refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office bearer of the society. The Prescribed Authority while deciding the dispute in respect of an election or office bearer of the society may decide the question of membership of a person also but that does not limit the power of the Registrar to take a decision in respect of the membership of the society while considering application for grant of renewal certificate. The order of the Registrar is subject to the decision of the civil Court. The question was considered in Committee of Management Kisan Shiksha Sadan, Banksahi district Basti and another v. Assistant Registrar, Funds Societies and Chits, gorakhpur Region. The order of the Registrar is subject to the decision of the civil Court. The question was considered in Committee of Management Kisan Shiksha Sadan, Banksahi district Basti and another v. Assistant Registrar, Funds Societies and Chits, gorakhpur Region. Gorakhpur and another, (1995) 2 UPLBEC 1242, wherein the Court observed :"if an objection is raised about the membership of a person, In our view, it is the duty of the Registrar for his own administrative purpose to enquire whether the person concerned is a member of the society or not. If the Registrar comes to the conclusion that such person is not a member of the society then he has under no obligation to refer the dispute or doubt relating to his election to the Prescribed Authority for decision. " ( 8 ) IN the instant case Ghanshyam Tiwari, petitioner No. 2 submitted a list of 64 members and it was the duty of respondent No. 1 to enquire about it and take decision in the matter. ( 9 ) SRI Khare, then challenged the finding recorded by respondent No. 1 holding that 44 members were not duly enrolled in the meeting alleged to be held on 18. 6. 1995. Clause 5 of the bye-laws of the society days down two conditions. The membership fee is to be deposited along with an application. Those who deposite Rs. 111 or more can be enrolled as ordinary members and those who deposit Rs. 1,000 in cash or invest more than Rs. 2,000 in the property of the institution shall be called distinguished members. The application is necessary for enrolment. Once application is submitted, it shall be placed before the general body. Members of the general body can examine the particulars given by such member and on such particulars can form opinion whether such applicant should be admitted as a member of the society. The submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent that it was a mere formality and even without such application a person can be admitted. cannot be accepted. ( 10 ) CLAUSE 7 of the bye-laws provides that the general body can admit any person as a member of the society. There is no provision that unless the president approves, no person can be admitted as a member. Clause 12 (sa)provides that for convening the meeting of the general body the permission of the patron member shall be taken. There is no provision that unless the president approves, no person can be admitted as a member. Clause 12 (sa)provides that for convening the meeting of the general body the permission of the patron member shall be taken. This is only for the purpose of convening a meeting of the general body when the members of the society desire to convene a meeting. It is not necessary to decide the question as to the effect of the refusal of the patron to convene a meeting in this petition. Admittedly 44 members had not submitted applications for enrolling themselves as members of the society, respondent No. 1 rightly held that these 44 persons cannot be taken as members of the society. Further there was doubt as to whether there persons had deposited the amount before the meeting took place on 18. 6. 1995. ( 11 ) THE second question before the respondent No. 1 was as to whom renewal certificate of registration of the society should be given. Admittedly last election was held on 3rd July, 1993 in which Chandra Bhushan Dubey was elected as President. He was also patron member of the society. Considering the facts he decided to give certificate to him with a list of 24 members. There was no dispute that in the last election held on 3rd July, 1993 there were only 24 members. As regards the right of Chandra bhushan Dubey as a patron member it has already been mentioned in the bye-laws of the society. Any observation of the Assistant Registrar, azamgarh which is not in consonance of the bye-laws of the society will have no effect. ( 12 ) IN view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. The parties shall. however, bear their own costs.