D. K. SETH, J. The order dated 2nd December 1996 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) has since been challenged by means of the present writ petition. Mr. Ashok Bushan assails the said order in the background that the Society was registered on 23rd September, 1958 and the petitioner No. 2 Sri Rama Shanker Singh was elected as Manager of the Society. The Society was renewed on 1st January 1980 by the Assis tant Registrar. One Sri Balram Pathak raised an objection on 15th May, 1981 against the order of renewal of the Society dated 1st January, 1980. There upon the Assistant Registrar had referred the matter to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, hereinafter referred to as the Act. According to him, the said dispute was decided as infructuous by an order dated 6th January 1996. Whereas in the meantime the election of office bearers had taken place for the last time on 25th June 1994. Sub sequently by an order dated 2nd December 1996, the Assistant Registrar had held that Sri Dharnidhar Singh, herein respondent No. 2, was the Manager of the Society by reason of his being elected validly. 2. Mr. Ashok Bhushan assailed the said order dated 2nd December 1996 on the ground, first, that since there was a rival claim, the Assistant Registrar did not have any jurisdiction to decide the dispute and he ought to have referred the matter under Section 25 (1) of the Act to the Prescribed Authority. Secondly he contends that while deciding the dispute and passing the order dated 2nd December, 1996, though had referred the election held by Dharnidhar Singh but had not adverted to the election held by the petitioner Rama Shanker Singh though the records of the dispute were al ready placed before the Assistant Registrar. He next contended that though all the relevant records relating to the holding of the election including the minute books were produced before the Assistant Registrar, the same were not taken into con sideration and, therefore, the order passed by him suffers from bias. 3. Mr. A. P. Sahi, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, assails the contention of Mr. Ashok Bhushan. 3. Mr. A. P. Sahi, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, assails the contention of Mr. Ashok Bhushan. He first contends that there was no dispute or rival claim lodged before the Assistant Registrar in order to bring the dispute within the ambit of Section 25 (1) of the Act. According to him, the Assistant Registrar does not act as merely a post office or rubber stamp. As soon a dispute is raised the Assis tant Registrar is not supposed to refer the same mechanically. In order to make a refer ence, the Assistant Registrar has to satisfy himself about the existence of the dispute or the rival claim. Only when he is satisfied that there exists a rival claim, then only he is required to refer the matter under Section 25 (1 ). In the present case, there being a finding that there was no rival claim which is supported by records, there is no infirmity in the said order. Secondly he contends that no material was available before the Assistant Registrar to the effect that an election had taken place on 25-6-1995. His next conten tion is that the petitioner having made in correct statement in paragraph 15 of the writ petition to the effect that the petitioner had filed the documents whereas from Annexure 5, it appears that the documents were submitted by one Ram Naresh and not by Rama Shanker, the petitioner, his claim can not be sustained. He also led me through various leadings and the Annexures similarly as Mr. Ashok Bhushan had led me through the pleadings and the Annexures respectively. 4. Mr. Ashok Bhushan, in reply, sub mitted that the Prescribed Authority had never decided the validity of the member ship of Dharnidhar. Therefore, the election held by Dharnidhar can not be upheld and the alleged finding that the Prescribed Authority had decided that Dharnidhar was a member being wholly non-existent, the order impugned can not be sustained. 5. Though Mr. Ashok Bhushan and Mr. A. P. Sahi had raised contentions argu ments extensively in support of their respec tive points as urged, it is not necessary to go into all those questions for the purpose of deciding the issue involved. 5. Though Mr. Ashok Bhushan and Mr. A. P. Sahi had raised contentions argu ments extensively in support of their respec tive points as urged, it is not necessary to go into all those questions for the purpose of deciding the issue involved. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the issue germane to the question is as to whether the Assis tant Registrar was competent to decide the question himself without making a reference under Section 25 (1) of the said Act to the Prescribed Authority. 6. Section 25 (1) of the Act requires that if there is a dispute with regard to the election of officer bearer or continuance in office, then it is incumbent on the Assistant Registrar to refer the same to the Prescribed Authority. The provision contained in the said Section postulate that the reference is to be made if there is existence of a dispute with regard to the election or to the con tinuance in office of the office bearers. Un less there is a dispute, the Assistant Registrar is not required to refer the same to the Prescribed Authority. The Assistant Registrar exercises a quasi-judicial authority in the matter of grant of renewal. He cannot act mechanically as soon a dis pute is raised. It has to apply its mind and find out as to whether there is in existence a dispute or not. Though in the garb of decid ing the question of existence of dispute, he is not empowered to decide the dispute or address himself on the dispute itself, but still then he is authorised to look into the exist ence of a dispute. His such decision with regard to the existence of the dispute is subject to revision of challenge before the appropriate forum. In exercise of writ juris diction this Court can go into and examine whether the Assistant Registrar has over stepped his jurisdiction while coming to a finding that no dispute exists. If it is found that he has so over-stepped, this Court can set is right. In the aforesaid context, the question, therefore, arises as to whether the finding that no dispute exists as arrived at by the Assistant Registrar in the order dated 2nd December, 1996 is justified or not. If it is found that he has so over-stepped, this Court can set is right. In the aforesaid context, the question, therefore, arises as to whether the finding that no dispute exists as arrived at by the Assistant Registrar in the order dated 2nd December, 1996 is justified or not. If it is found that the said finding is justified and is within the ambit and scope of the jurisdic tion conferred on the Assistant Registrar, then it is not necessary to go into the other question raised by the learned counsels of either of the parties. 7. In paragraph 19 of the writ petition it has been stated that the last election of the office bearers of the Society was held on 25th June 1994 in which Rama Shanker was elected as Manager. In paragraph 15 it has been contended that by letter dated 3rd May 1996 which is Annexure 5, the details of such application have been furnished to the Assistant Registrar. A plain reading of An nexure 5, as rightly pointed out by Mr. A. P. Sahi, indicates that the letter dated 3rd May 1996 was sent by Ram Naresh Singh and not by the petitioner in which though Ram Naresh Singh had claimed that he is the founder and Manager of the Society and that the election of Balram Pathak and Raj Bahadur Singh was illegal and forged and that Dharnidhar Singh became Manager after the death of Raj Bahadur Singh and that Dharnidhar was never a member nor had ever been the Manager. Therefore, the petitioner having not raised a dispute can not espouse his case after any adverse order is passed in the alleged dispute. It was Ram Naresh Singh who could have challenged the same. But Ram Naresh Singh has not challenged the said order dated 2nd Decem ber 1996. Mr. A. P. Sahi refers to a letter dated 29th June 1996 which Rama Shanker Singh as Manager had sent to the Assistlnt Registrar which is Annexure ra-4 to the Rejoinder affidavit. It was Ram Naresh Singh who could have challenged the same. But Ram Naresh Singh has not challenged the said order dated 2nd Decem ber 1996. Mr. A. P. Sahi refers to a letter dated 29th June 1996 which Rama Shanker Singh as Manager had sent to the Assistlnt Registrar which is Annexure ra-4 to the Rejoinder affidavit. In the said letter it has been contended that by Resolution No. 5 taken in the meeting dated 25th June 1996, the name of the office bearers elected unani mously on 25th May 1988, 25th June 1991 and 25th June 1994 were being forwarded for the purpose of recognising the said unanimously elected Committee and for renewing the registration of the Society. Mr. Ashok Bhushan has not been able to point out any document showing that any intima tion with regard to the election held on respective dates mentioned above had ever been forwarded to the Assistant Registrar by Rama Shanker before 29th June 1996. It has also not been explained as to why though the elections are held long before the names of the office bearers were sent only on 29th June 1996. Nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court to show that there was any document in support of holding those elections. Mr. A. P. Sahi had referred to the order dated 6th January 1996 passed under Section 25 of the said Act where it was noted that the election in respect of 1977 was the subject-matter of consideration in the said proceedings. By reason of efflux of time, the same had be come infructuous. Therefore, no decision was given. In the said order it was mentioned that Dharnidhar Singh had submitted that they had held the election and had applied for the renewal of registration of the Society against which no information had been dis closed about the holding of any election by any one else and the election having not been disputed, it would be desirable that the Assistant Registrar should proceed with the same accordingly and accordingly the same was referred to the Assistant Registrar for decision. It is not disputed that the parties were aware of the said decision. Nothing has been shown that even Ram Naresh Singh had sent any intimation prior to 3rd May 1996 about the holding of any election in 1994. It is not disputed that the parties were aware of the said decision. Nothing has been shown that even Ram Naresh Singh had sent any intimation prior to 3rd May 1996 about the holding of any election in 1994. It is also not disputed that the election was due to be held in 1994. 8. Then again from the impugned order Mr. Sahi had pointed out that the only objection that was raised by the respondents was that Dharnidhar Singh was not a mem ber of the Society. Nowhere in the said order it was mentioned that any information with regard to holding of election was available before the Assistant Registrar. Despite several opportunity having been given it was mentioned in the said order that no materials were produced. It has been pointed out that time was extended from time to time till 13th November, 1996 to file objections to the election of Dharnidhar but no such objection was filed. Therefore, it was found that the only objection that was raised was as to whether Dharnidhar was a member or not. It was also held that no other election has been claimed except Dharnidhar and, therefore, the said election is not disputed. He has also found that 40 life members were inducted after receiving the requisite fee for life members in 1987 and out of such fees so realised. N. S. C. 669820 dated 19th August 1987 registered as N. S. C. No. 1276 was purchased. On in spection it was found that the name of Dharnidhar Singh is figuring at SI. No. 13 of the list of life members. 9. Therefore, apparently, on the face of the above facts, prima facie it appears that the Assistant Registrar had found Dharnidhar as a member of the Society and that except Dharnidhar no other has laid any claim with sufficient materials that there was any other election held either by Rama Shanker or by Ram Naresh Singh. The documents that have been produced do not show sufficient material to hold that any election was so held and that any intimation on the said application was ever given before June 1996. 10. The contention of Mr. The documents that have been produced do not show sufficient material to hold that any election was so held and that any intimation on the said application was ever given before June 1996. 10. The contention of Mr. Ashok Bhushan that the Assistant Registrar has wrongly found that in the earlier order the membership of Dharnidhar was found or that the election held by Dharnidhar was found to be validly held can not be sustained because there was no such finding recorded in the earlier order. He had led me through the earlier order. Mr. A. P. Sahi was unable to point out any thing contrary to what has been submitted by Mr. Ashok Bhushan with regard to the above finding in the earlier order. But that finding, even if contrary to the finding given in the earlier order, will not help the petitioner on the face of the specific finding by the Assistant Registrar himself that Dharnidhar was a member and that there was no other election was claimed to have been held and that the objection raised was only confined to the membership of Dharnidhar. 11. In that view of the matter, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Assis tant Registrar. Inasmuch as it was well within his jurisdiction to find out whether there is any material to bring the case within the ambit of Section 25 (1) of the Act and having found as such on the basis of material on record, there is no scope for interferring with the same. Nothing has been brought to the notice of this court to point out that the finding of the Assistant Registrar is other wise perverse. On the other hand Mr. Ashok Bhushan has not been able to point out sufficient material to the above extent. Even from the record of the Assistant Registrar Mr. Ashok Bhushan was unable to point out anything in order to substantiate that any information as to the holding of election by Rama Shanker or Ram Naresh Singh was submitted before June 1996 or that there was any material with regard to the holding of such election. 12. Be that as it may, the decision of the Assistant Registrar is definitely not final and is subject to challenge in a civil suit before the Civil Court if the parties or any of them are aggrieved otherwise. 13. 12. Be that as it may, the decision of the Assistant Registrar is definitely not final and is subject to challenge in a civil suit before the Civil Court if the parties or any of them are aggrieved otherwise. 13. Then again one Inderpal Singh had filed Writ Petition No. 9144 of 1996 which was decided on 10th January 1996 challeng ing the order dated 6th January 1996. Mr. Sahi contended that Inderpal Singh was the contesting party and the petitioner had never challenged the order dated 6th January, 1996. But the said contention has no relevance in the present facts and cir cumstances of the case. 14. In the case of Committee of Management, Kisan Shiksha Sadan, Banksahi, District Basti and another vs. As sistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur Region and another (1995)2 UPLBEC 1242, it was held: "in exercising this power whether to refer or not any doubt or dispute relating to the election of members of the Managing body of a Society to the Prescribed Authority, the Registrar has to apply his mind to the facts of the case and take a decision. In taking such a decision, the Registrar will be quite justified to take into account all the relevant circumstances, as he has done in the present case. 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 pur pose, to enquire into whether the person con cerned is a member of the Society or not. If the Registrar comes to the conclusion that such a person is not a member of the Society then he is under no obligation to refer the dispute or doubt relating to his election to the Prescribed Authority for decision. " 15. The principle laid down in the case of Urwa Bazar Educational Society, Urwa Bazar, Gorakhpur and another v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Division Gorakhpur and others, 1988 UFLBEC 515, is a settled principle of law. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ratio decided does not apply. Inasmuch as in the said case, there were two rival groups claim ing to have been elected and in respect whereof there were sufficient materials un like the present case where there was no material to show that there was any such material. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ratio decided does not apply. Inasmuch as in the said case, there were two rival groups claim ing to have been elected and in respect whereof there were sufficient materials un like the present case where there was no material to show that there was any such material. Similarly the decision in the case of S. K. Mishra and another v. District Inspec tor of Schools, Oral and another (1996)2 UPLBEC 886, does not help Mr. Ashok Bhushan since the facts are wholly distin guishable. 16. In that view of the matter, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .