Judgment O.P. Garg, J. 1. By means of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have challenged the order dated 31-3-1998 passed by the Regional Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits Meerut, which is Annexure-10 to this writ petition. 2. Heard Dr. R.G. Padia learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.K. Pandey learned Counsel for respondent No. 2. Petitioner No. 1 Committee of Management, Anjuman Moin-Ut-TUlaba, Bulandshahr is a society registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act. This society came into being in the year 1928 and is managing three educational institutions viz. (1) Muslim Inter College, Bulandshahr (2) Faiyaz Begum Muslim Girls Inter College, Bulandshahr and (3) Muslim Girls Degree College Bulandshahr. The last election of the society was held on 26-12-1993 of which Haji Raunaq Ali Khan, respondent No. 2 and Abdul Shaheed Khan were elected respectively as President and Secretary. The period of the Committee of Management was three years and consequently it is alleged that fresh election was held on 26-12-1996. The last elected candidates was registered by respondent No. 1, Deputy Registrar on 7- 4-1997. Petition No. 2 Mohammad Shamim Alam Khan who claimed to be the Secretary of the Society having been allegedly elected on 3-8-1997 took an exception to the order of registration dated 7-4-1997 in favour of the committee represented by respondent No. 1, Haji Raunaq Alikhan. Mohammad Shamim Alam Khan filed a number of objections and the representations which came to be decided by the Deputy Registrar, respondent No. 2 by the impugned order which indicates that on a number of dates parties evidence was taken and after hearing them it was concluded that the order of registration on 7-4-1997 was rightly passed and now it is of no consequence to decide the alleged illegalities and irregularities in the last election on 26-12-1993 as the new election of 26-12-1996 has taken place. 3. Assailing the impugned order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Dr. Padia urged that respondent No. 1 has arrogated to himself a jurisdiction which has been conferred upon the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. 3. Assailing the impugned order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Dr. Padia urged that respondent No. 1 has arrogated to himself a jurisdiction which has been conferred upon the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. According to the learned Counsel, the Deputy Registrar had no authority or competence to decide the dispute raised by the rival Committees of Management and that the only legal course to be adopted by respondent No. 1 was to have referred the matter to the Prescribed Authority for decision under Section 25 of the Act. Under the Govern ment Order a Sub-Divisional Officer has been notified as the Prescribed Authority for purposes of Section 25 of the Act. Sri R.K. Pandey learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has repelled the various sub missions made on behalf of the petitioner and supported the order passed by respondent No. 2. 4. I have given thoughtful consideration to the matter. There is no dispute about the fact that the scope, object and controversy which is to be decided and the authorities under Section 4(1) proviso to Section 25 of the Act are quite separate and distinct. Under Section 4, annual list of managing body is to be filed before the Registrar for record. The list of the managing body is to be counter-signed by the old members and if the old office bearers do not counter-sign the list, the Registrar may, in his discretion issue a public notice or notice to such persons as he thinks fit inviting objections within a specified period and is required to decide all objections received within the said period. It is a sort of administrative enquiry. On the other hand, the Prescribed Authority on a reference made to it, by the Registrar or by atleast ¼th of the members of a society, 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. The Prescribed Authority has the power to set aside the election of an office bearer if he is satisfied that any corrupt practice has been committed by such office bearer, that the nomination of any candidate has been improperly rejected or that the result of the election, insofar as it concerns such office bearer, has been materially affected by the improper acceptance of any nomination or by improper rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote, which is void or by any non-compliance with the provisions of the rules of the society. A bare reading of Section 25 would make it clear that the Prescribed Authority can go into the validity of otherwise of the elections, as set up by the rival office bearers on the founds specified above. The Registrar as no power to Act under Section 25 of the Act except that he can simply make a reference to the Prescribed Authority. Section 25 of the Act contemplates different situation, It is attracted only when there is no dispute in respect of registration of Society or its renewal of certificate or registration but there is dispute between two rival parties each of whom is claiming to be validly elected body. In such a situation the dispute between the two rival parties has to be referred for adjudication under Section 25 of the Act. Section 25 of the Act is also attracted when a party challenges the illegality or otherwise of the election of particular set of office bearers of society on the grounds enumerated in Section 25 of the Act. Thus, the dispute under Section 25 of the Act can only be referred for adjudication only when it is found that the registration of the society or its renewal is intact. 5. There is plethora of rulings on the point that where there is any doubt or dispute in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office bearer of a society, the Prescribed Authority on a reference under Section 25 of the Act may pass orders in a summary manner and the said order is subject to the adjudication by a competent authority. In this connection a reference may be made to (1990) 1 UPLBEC 480, Abhay Grasth Gramin Jan Sangathan Kusmikhalan and Anr. In this connection a reference may be made to (1990) 1 UPLBEC 480, Abhay Grasth Gramin Jan Sangathan Kusmikhalan and Anr. v. Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits Varanasi Region, Varanasi and Anr., (1991) 2 UPLBEC 1046; Muslim Welfare Society, Machhlishahr, District Jaunpur and Anr. v. Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits and Ors., 1993 AWC 332 ; Khapraha Education Society, Khapraha Jaunpur and Anr. v. Assistant Registrar, Firms Chits and Societies, Varanasi Region, Varanasi and Anr. 197 (29) ALR 194, Committee of Manage ment, Shiksha Sansthan Samiti Mau andanr. v. The Assistant Registrar, Firms Society and Chits, Azamgarh and Ors., 1992 AWC 1225 ; Committee of Management, Audyogik Vikas Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Samiti, Bibara Bazar, Maharajganj, District Basti and Anr. v. Prescribed Authority, Basti (Under U. P. Societies Registration Act No. XI of 1984)/sub-Divisional Magistrate, Harriya, Basti and Ors., 1981 UPLBEC 308; Vijai Narain Singh v. Registrar, Firms, Society and Chits U. P. Lucknow and Ors. and 1987 UPLBEC 333, Committee of Management and Ors. v. Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari and Ors. The gamut of all these rulings is that where there is a dispute about the election and with regard to continuance of any office of an office bearer it has to be decided by the Prescribed, Authority under Section 25 of the Act and the Deputy Registrar had no jurisdiction to decide the said controversy by illegally arrogating to himself a jurisdiction which is vested in the Prescribed Authority. 6. The moot point for consideration is whether the impugned order passed by the Deputy Registrar is an order under Section 25 of the Act or has been passed in his administrative capacity to determine whether the order dated 7-4-1997 by which respondent No. 2 Society has been registered in pursuance of the election held on 26-12-1996 is erroneous. The exercise of power under Section 4(1) proviso is essentially an administrative in character. The finding recorded by the Assistant Registrar under the said provision does not decide the dispute as to the entitlement of the members of the Committee of Management. An Assistant Registrar, under the aforesaid provision, is not entrusted with the duty to Act judicially though he must Act fairly. While making an order under Section 4(1) proviso, the Asstt. Registrar has no trap pings of the Court. The administrative decision taken by the Assistant Registrar is subject to the decision by the competent Court. An Assistant Registrar, under the aforesaid provision, is not entrusted with the duty to Act judicially though he must Act fairly. While making an order under Section 4(1) proviso, the Asstt. Registrar has no trap pings of the Court. The administrative decision taken by the Assistant Registrar is subject to the decision by the competent Court. In this connection, a reference may be made to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in (1995) 2 UPLBEC 1242, Committee of Management, Kishan Shiksha Sadan Vankashi District Basti and Ann v. Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur and Anr., in which it has been laid down: "section 4 of the Act provides that a list of members of the managing body of a Society shall be filed with the Registrar. That list is maintained by the Registrar for the purpose of per forming his administrative functions as a Registrar. Section 25 of the Act provides that whenever any doubt or dispute is raised regarding the election of members of a managing body of a Society, the Registrar may refer such doubt or dispute to the Prescribed Authority for his decision. But when one-fourth members of the Society raise a doubt or dispute relating to the election of the members of managing body of Society, the matter automatically goes to the Prescribed Authority for decision and in such a case the Registrar does not come into the picture. In exercising this power whether to refer or not-any doubt or 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 purpose to enquire into whether the person concerned 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 obligation to refer the dispute of doubt relating to his election to the Prescribed Authority for decision." 7. If the Registrar, comes to the conclusion that such a person is not a member of the Society then he is under obligation to refer the dispute of doubt relating to his election to the Prescribed Authority for decision." 7. The above decision has been followed in (1996) 3 UPLBEC 1992 , Educational Sahyogi Association and Anr. v. by. Registrar, Funds Societies and Chits, Faizabad and Ors. and 1997 (2) LBESR 496 (All), Committee of Management, Naideo Kuldeopurva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Belaon Jaunpur and Anr. v. Assistant Registrar of Firms Societies and Chits, Azamgarh and Anr. In the latter case of Naldeo Kuldeo purwa the question for determination was whether the Assistant Registrar was competent to decide the question himself without making the reference under Section 25(1) of the Act to the Prescribed Authority. It was held that 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. In exercising his power whether to refer or not any dispute or doubt relating to the election of members of 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. If an objection is raised about the member ship of a person, it is the duty of the Registrar for his own administrative purpose, to enquire into whether the person concerned is a member of the Society or not. 8. In Kranti Kumar Chaturvedi and Ors. v. District Inspector of Schools Kanpur and Ors., 1995 (3) ESC 166 (All), it was observed that whether a particular body was illegally elected and has obtained renewal certificate of registration by practising fraud is a question which is within the jurisdiction of the Registrar. This case was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in (1998) 1 UPLBEC 290, Shiksha Parishad Nagwa, Ballia and Anr. v. Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Faizabad Division, Faizabad and Anr. 9. In (1997) 1 UPLBEC 258 , Committee of Management, Sarvodaya Mandal, Baranpur, Koraon District Allahabad and Ors. This case was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in (1998) 1 UPLBEC 290, Shiksha Parishad Nagwa, Ballia and Anr. v. Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Faizabad Division, Faizabad and Anr. 9. In (1997) 1 UPLBEC 258 , Committee of Management, Sarvodaya Mandal, Baranpur, Koraon District Allahabad and Ors. v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits Allahabad and Ors., it was held by a learned single Judge of this Court that if a genuine dispute regarding the election arises the matter, of necessity, is to be referred to the Prescribed Authority but when the dispute appears to be frivolous the provisions of Section 25 of the Act are not attracted. 10. There is another celebrated decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 1998 (1) UPLBEC 399, Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Allahabad and Anr. v. Registrar Societies, Chits and Firms, U.P. Lucknow and Ors., in which it was observed that in a case is which both the sides are seeking renewal of registration of the same society, they cannot be said to be aggrieved party, if the renewal of the registration in granted by the authority concerned. The renewal is of the registration of the society and it is for the benefit of all the members and office bearers of the society. There may be a situation that two rival factions of the same society may apply for renewal separately and the renewal may be granted at the instance of one of them but the ultimate beneficiary shall be the society as a whole and not the individuals alone seeking renewal. In such a situation after renewal of the registration of the society, the dispute about renewal must be taken to have come to an end. A stranger cannot and should not be allowed to claim renewal of registration of the society. In the instant case after scrutiny of the facts the body which was elected on 26-12-1996 represented by respondent No. 2 was registered on 7-4-1997. Petitioner No. 2 has some complaints with regard to last election of the year 1993 and has set up a rival election held on 3-8-1997. The Committee of Management elected on 26-12-1993 had come to an end and the old Committee has now been substituted by a new one elected on 26-12-1996 and duly registered on 7-4-1997. Petitioner No. 2 has some complaints with regard to last election of the year 1993 and has set up a rival election held on 3-8-1997. The Committee of Management elected on 26-12-1993 had come to an end and the old Committee has now been substituted by a new one elected on 26-12-1996 and duly registered on 7-4-1997. The com plaint of petitioner No. 2 with regard to the election of the year 1993 have become otiose and the Deputy Registrar has rightly observed that they are not required to be looked into. As regards the rival election set up on 3-8-1997 by petitioner No. 2, it cannot be said to be bon fide as after the expiry of the term of the previous commit tee fresh election had already taken place 26-12-1996. If petitioner No. 2 feels really aggrieved in the matter, independent of the reference to the Registrar which he has impliedly refused to make, he can get the reference made by at least ¼th of the members of the registered society as contemplated under Section 25 of the Act. 11. In any case in the back-drop of the above facts this Court is not inclined to enter into the controversy which requires scrutiny/sifting of controversial facts in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Infinite disputes have to be given a full-stop and the matter cannot be allowed to be raked up time and again. The litigative zeal of the rival claimants to manage the affairs of a society has to be deprecated. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.