( 1 ) ON 14/12/1999, the learned Single Judge, before whom instant petition was up for consideration for admission, passed the following order : honble S. Harkauli, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. This writ petition arises out of an order passed by the Registrar of the Societies dated 19-11-1999 by which it has been held that respondent No. 2 is validly elected committee of management and petitioner No. 1 is not the validly elected committee. The election of respondent No. 2 is alleged to have been held on 21-3-1999 while election of petitioner No. 1 is alleged to have been held on 20-6-1999. the renewal of certificate of registration of the societies was done in 1991. Consequent upon the election, three applications were filed for renewal of registration. First application was by out going committee of management which did not appear to press the application and the application was impliedly rejected by granting renewal in favour of respondent No. 2. Two other applications were made by petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 Consequence to the finding in favour of election dated 21-3-1999 the renewal has been granted in favour of respondent No. 2. The order is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the Registrar had no power to decide the dispute as to which the committee of management was validly elected committee of management. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 who has filed a caveat in this case has relied upon S. 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 as amended in its application to U. P. " to justify the decision of the Registrar. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 relies upon two decisions of this Court reported in (1998) 2 UPLBEC 1000 and (1998) 3 UPLBEC 1925 : (1999 All LJ 64)learned counsel for the petitioners on the other hand relies upon the decision of this Court reported in 1993 ESC 201; Khaparaha Educational Society v. Assistant Registrar, in which after considering the earlier decisions the learned single Judge has taken a view that the dispute regular election should be referred to the Prescribed Authority instead of being decided by the Registrar. An argument was raised in the said reported decision which is contained in paragraph 7 of the Law Report. An argument was raised in the said reported decision which is contained in paragraph 7 of the Law Report. The said arguments does not appear to have been answered except by saying that if the argument is accepted S. 25 (1)would become meaningless. For ready reference S. 4 (1) proviso as applicable in U. P. and S. 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act is reproduced below : section 4 (1) Once in every year, on or before the fourteenth day succeeding the day which, according to the rules of the society, the annual general meeting of the society is held, or, if the rules do not provide for an annual general meeting in the month of January, a list shall be filed with (Registrar) of the names, addresses and occupations of the governors, council, directors, committee, or other governing body them entrusted with the management of the affairs of the society: (Provided that if the managing body is elected after the last submission of the list, the counter signatures of the old members, shall, as far as possible, be obtained on the list. If the old office-bearers do not counter-sign the list, the Registrar may, in his direction, issue a public notice or notice to such person as he thinks fit inviting objections within a specified period and shall decide all objections received within the said period ). Section 25 (1) : The prescribed authority may, on reference made to it by the Registrar or 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 is so far it concerns such office-bearer has been materially affected by the improper acceptance 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. "in my opinion if interpretation as suggested by learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted then the word and shall decide all objections received" in the proviso of Section 4 (1) will become absolutely meaningless. On the other hand the provision of Section 25 (1) indicates that the said Section is intended to constitute the Prescribed Authority into an election Tribunal dealing with cases of election of individual members who either guilty of corrupt practice or have been improperly elected because of the reasons given in the said proviso. Thus Section 4 (1) and Section 25 (1), aforesaid, operate in different and distinct field. Where the dispute is not of the nature referred to in the proviso of Section 25 (1), but concerns other matters it has to be decided by the Registrar if the list is not counter-signed by out going members and objections are received pursuant to even without public notice or other notice contemplated by proviso. In the circumstances, I consider it desirable that the matter be placed before a Bench of at least three Honble Judges (in view of the earlier Division Bench) for clear interpretation of two provisions referred to above so that the question of law may be settled. For this purpose relevant papers may be submitted before the Honble the Chief Justice for instituting a larger Bench. In the mean time if the petitioner is so advised he may institute a suit in accordance with normal law. Dt. 14-12-1999. "pursuant to the above order dated 14/12/1999, the then Honble The Chief Justice passed an order which reads thus : place it before the Bench presided over by Honble d. S. Sinha, J. " n. K. Mitra 19-1-2000. " ( 2 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the matter is up before this Bench. The Bench has read and re-read the order with the assistance of Sri A. P. Shahi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri Narsingh Dikshit, the learned counsel of the respondent No. 2, and Sri Vinay Malviya, the learned Standing Counsel of the State of U. P. , representing the respondent No. 1, in anxiety to find out the question or questions of law which need answer by this Bench. ( 3 ) CLAUSE (b) of the second proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter V of the Rules of Court, 1952 (hereinafter called the Rules) empowers a Judge, if he thinks fit, to refer a case which may be heard by a Judge sitting alone or any question of law arising therein for decision to a larger Bench. Obviously, the case has not been referred to this Bench for decision. From a meaningful reading of the order dated 14/12/1999, the Bench perceives that it is called upon to settle some questions of law. However, the Bench has not been able to identify the question or questions of law referred for answer. ( 4 ) REFERENCE to a larger Bench is envisaged in Rule 6 of Chapter V of the Rules, which provides that the Chief Justice may constitute a Bench of two or more Judges to decide a case or any question of law formulated by a Bench hearing a case. In the latter event the decision of such Bench on the question so formulated shall be returned to the Bench hearing the case and that Bench shall follow that decision on such question and dispose of the case after deciding the remaining questions, if any, arising therein. ( 5 ) THE requirement of law, in the opinion of this Bench, is that the Bench hearing a case must formulate the question and refer the same to a larger Bench as and when such occasion arises. In the absence of any question or questions, specifically formulated, the Bench to which the matter is referred shall be groping in dark. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsels appearing for the parties, very fairly, concede that framing of question of law is a condition precedent for making reference to a larger Bench for decision; and that in the instant case no question or questions of law having been formulated, it will be an exercise in futility to probe and proceed in the matter further. ( 7 ) ON the facts and circumstances noticed above, in the opinion of the Bench, it is expedient that the matter may be remitted to the learned single Judge for formulating specific question or questions of law which in his opinion require answer by a larger Bench. ( 7 ) ON the facts and circumstances noticed above, in the opinion of the Bench, it is expedient that the matter may be remitted to the learned single Judge for formulating specific question or questions of law which in his opinion require answer by a larger Bench. ( 8 ) LET the papers be laid before the learned single Judge after obtaining requisite order from the Honble the Chief Justice, at an early date. Order accordingly. .