O. P. GARG, J. In this writ petition, the validity of the order dated 18-8-1997, Annexure-7 to the writ petition, passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur has been challenged by the petitioner- Committee of Management Janta Audyogik Vidyalaya, Sherpur Gurha, Kanpur Dehat through its Secretary/manager, Vir Sen Yadav. Counter and rejoinder- affidavits have been exchanged. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is finally disposed of. 2. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri V. K. Shukla, learned Counsel for the respon dent Nos. 2 and 3. 3. Sri Janta Audyogik Vidyalaya, Sherpur, Gurha, Kanpur Dehat is a society which was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 on 9-1-1963. The renewal of the certificate of registration of the said society was made on 19-3-1994 for a period of 5 years commencing from 10-10-1990 on the application of Ram Swarup Yadav, the then Manager/secretary. List of the Committee of Management and its office bearers of the year 1993-94 was filed. At that time, there were only 12 members of the general body. Shiv Lal Singh, Respondent No. 3 applied for renewal of the certificate of registra tion for a period of 5 years and filed the necessary documents as required under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act. The petitioners filed objections before the Deputy Registrar who by the impugned order dated 18-8- 1997 came to the conclusion that the papers filed by Shiv Lal for renewal of the certificate of registration under Section 3-A of the Societies Registration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are acceptable and accordingly by invoking the powers under Section 4 (1), list of the committee of management of the year 1997-98 was registered and renewal for 5 years w. e. f. 10-10-1995 was allowed and the objec tions filed by Vir Sen Yadav were rejected. 4. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Counsel for the petitioners challenged the im pugned order on the ground that no op portunity of hearing was given to the petitioners and in effect, the impugned order is merely ex pane. 4. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Counsel for the petitioners challenged the im pugned order on the ground that no op portunity of hearing was given to the petitioners and in effect, the impugned order is merely ex pane. It was also urged that the Deputy Registrar had no jurisdic tion to pass the impugned order as the only course left open to him was to have referred the dispute about the election of the rival committees of management to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Act. Sri VK. Shukla repelled all these submissions. 5. On behalf of the petitioners, it was urged that the Registrar himself has no jurisdiction under Section 4 (1) of the Act to hear and decide any doubt or dispute in respect of an election or continuance in office of an office bearer of a society and, therefore, any decision given by him in this regard will be wholly without jurisdiction. Sri Khare maintains that the Dy. Registrar was under the law bound to refer the dis pute of the nature raised before him to the Prescribed Authority. In support of his contention, Sri Khare placed reliance on the following decisions: (1) 1981 UPLBEC308 (DB) Vijay Narain Singh v. Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, U. P. Lucknow A Ors. ; (2 ). (1987) 1 UPLBEC 333 Committee of Management and Ors. v. Zila Basic Siksha Adhikari & Ors. ; (3) (1988) 1 UPLBEC 515 (DB) Purva Bazar Educational Society, Gorakhpur v. Asstt. Registrar, Firms Chits and Societies, Gorakhpur. (4) AIR 1988 Allahabad 236 All India Council andanrv. Firms, Societies and Chits. (5) 1991 AWC 1311 Muslim Welfare Society Machlinagar v. Asstt. Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits. (6) 1993 (2) UPLBEC 890 Khoproha Educational Society & Ors. v. Asstt. Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits. (7) 1994 HVD (Alld) Vol. Ill 389 (DB) Company Management v. Asstt. Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits. The gamut of all these rulings is that if there is any doubt or dispute about the election of the committee of management or the office bearers, such a dispute cannot be resolved by Deputy Registrar in exer cise of his powers under Sections 3-A and 4 of the Act and he is left with no option but to refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority for being decided under the provisions of Section 25 of the Act. Sri Shukla maintained that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Registrar is in effect, an order under Section 4 of the Act and, therefore, no exception can be taken about it. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on two decisions of the Division Bench of this Court, namely, (i) (1995) 2 UPLBEC 1242, Committee of Management, Kishan Shiksha Sudan, Bankshai Distt. Basti and another v. Assis tant Registrar, Chits, Firms and Societies, Gorakhpur and (ii) dated 28-10-1997 in Special Appeal No. 22 of 1996 Shiksha Parishad Nagwa Ballia and another v. Dy. Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits & Ors. 6. Before entering into the con troversy whether the impugned order, in effect, is an order passed under Section 4 of the Act or amounts to usurpation of the power of the prescribed authority, as con templated under Section 25 of the Act, it would be proper to make a reference to the celebrated decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 1998 (1) UPLBEC 399 Shiksha Prasar Samiti Allahabad and another v. Registrar Societies, Chits and Firms, U. P. , Lucknow and others, in which it was observed that in a case in which both the sides are seeking renewal of registra tion of the same society, they cannot be said to be aggrieved party, if the renewal of the registration is granted by the authority concerned. The renewal is of the registra tion 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, the renewal of the certificate of registration has been allowed at the instance of Shiv Lal Singh-Respondent No. 3 who cannot be said to be a stranger. 7. The scope and object of provisions of Section 4 and Section 25 of the Act are suite separate and distinct. In the instant case, the renewal of the certificate of registration has been allowed at the instance of Shiv Lal Singh-Respondent No. 3 who cannot be said to be a stranger. 7. The scope and object of provisions of Section 4 and Section 25 of the Act are suite separate and distinct. Under Section, 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 countersign 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 en quiry. On the other hand, the Prescribed Authority on a reference made to it, by the Registrar or by at least 1/4th of the mem bers 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 there of, as it deem 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 the 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. 8. 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 of registration but there is dis pute between two rival parties each of whom is claiming to be validly elected body. In such a situation, the dispute be tween the two rival parties has to be referred for adjudication under Section 25 of the Act. In such a situation, the dispute be tween 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 legality or otherwise of the election of par ticular 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 be referred for adjudica tion only when it is found that the registra tion of the society or its renewal is intact. 9. In Kranti Kumar Chaturvedi & Ors. v. District Inspector of Schools Kanpur and Ors. , 1995 (3) ESC 166 (All), a Division Bench of this Court has clearly ruled that Section 25 of the Act would be attracted if there is dispute between two rival parties each of whom is claiming to be validly elected body and that the Section is also attracted when a party challenges the legality or otherwise of the election of par ticular act of office bearer of the society on the grounds enumerated in Section 25 of the Act. The Division Bench has further ruled that Section 25 would be attracted to a dispute of the nature aforesaid, only when there is no dispute in respect of registration of society or its renewal of certificate of registration. A reference may also be made to another decision of the Division Bench in Shambhu Kumar Tripathi v. Asstt. Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, AIR 1994 All 209 , in which it was observed: ". . . . . . It is evident from Section 3-A that renewal of the certificate of registration of a society is within the exclusive jurisdic tion/domain of the Registrar which term in cludes Asstt. Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits. The power to renew a certificate of registration being expressly and exclusively con ferred upon the Registrar, the Registrar would be deemed to possess all incidental and ancillary powers as may be considered necessary for an effective exercise of the power under Section 3-Aoftheact. " 10. It is no use to refer to the plethora of decisions on the point as it would un necessarily burden this judgment. " 10. It is no use to refer to the plethora of decisions on the point as it would un necessarily burden this judgment. The fact remains that so far as renewal of certificate of the society is concerned, it can be done by the Registrar and Prescribed Authority has nothing to do with it and, therefore, the order of Deputy Registrar-respondent No. 1, in so far as it allowed the proceeding for renewal of certificate of registration initiated and culminated in the order of renewal for a specified period at the in stance of Shiv Lal Singh-Respondent No. 3, warrant no interference as ap parently, the Dy. Registrar has committed no illegality. It is not in all the cases that the Dy. Registrar is bound to refer the dispute under Section 25 to the Prescribed Authority. In the absence of a reference by the Dy. Registrar, the petitioners may also go in for a reference provided they are in a position to muster the strength of one fourth of the members of the registered society. Section 25 itself contemplates that independent of a reference by the Registrar, a reference may be made by at least one-fourth of the members of the registered society. 11. The submission of Sri Ashok Khare that the impugned order is vitiated on account of non-observance of prin ciples of natural justice is wide off the mark. As a matter of fact, the petitioners Committee filed objections before the Dy. Registrar and had the occasion and oppor tunity to place material in support of their objections. The petitioners availed the full opportunity of hearing. Even, otherwise, in matters, where observance of principles of natural justice would have made no difference and the admitted or undisputed or unrefutable facts speaking for themsel ves lead to a situation where only one conclusion is possible under the law, issu ing of a writ to compel the observance of natural justice is not at all called for. In my view, firstly it is not a case in which prin ciples of natural justice have been violated and secondly, even if it be so, a writ shall not issue for the mere asking of the petitioners as the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and was passed after consideration of the material available on record. In my view, firstly it is not a case in which prin ciples of natural justice have been violated and secondly, even if it be so, a writ shall not issue for the mere asking of the petitioners as the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and was passed after consideration of the material available on record. Consideration of the material on record itself by the concerned authority in some cases fulfils the require ment of the principles of natural justice. In this behalf, a reference may also profitably be made to a recent decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 15117 of 1998 Com mittee of Management, Anjuman Moin-ul-Thlaba, Bulandhahr v. Dy. Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Meerut and Ors. decided on 3-8-1998, wherein a similar view has been taken by this Court. 12. In conclusion, there is no jus tification, whatsoever, to interfere with the impugned order dated 18- 8-1997, Annexure 7 to the writ petition, passed by the Dy. Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur, Respondent No. 1. The writ peti tion is devoid of any merits and substance and it is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .