R. R. YADAV, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Sri P. K. Misra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2. ( 2 ) ALTHOUGH the present writ petition is posted today for admission but with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, 1 propose to dispose it of finally at admission stage on merit. ( 3 ) THE petitioner, Ajay Kumar Srivastava filed the present writ petition questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 6. 7. 2001, Annexure-5 to the writ petition, passed by Assistant registrar, Firms. Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur on the ground, inter alia, that on the basis of the finding recorded by the respondent No, 1, the matter ought to have been referred to the prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pradeep Verma that the respondent No. 2 has committed serious error in recognising the annual list of managing body submitted by the respondent No. 2. ( 4 ) THE aforesaid argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pradeep Verma is refuted by Sri P. K. Misra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2. It is submitted by Sri Misra that earlier a writ petition was filed against the aforesaid illegal action relating the list of the office bearers submitted by answering respondent No. 2. The aforesaid writ petition was numbered as Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16129 of 2001. The learned Judges constituting Division Bench on 30. 4. 2001 after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking their submissions into account disposed of the writ petition with a direction that objection filed by the petitioner on 17. 4. 2001 before respondent No. 1 shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law by respondent No. 1. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, u. P. Gorakhpur, within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. In pursuant of the aforesaid order dated 30. 4. 2001 passed by the learned Judges constituting division Bench in the aforesaid writ petition, the respondent No. 1 has approved the list submitted by the answering respondent No. 2 after analytical discussion of the materials placed before him. In pursuant of the aforesaid order dated 30. 4. 2001 passed by the learned Judges constituting division Bench in the aforesaid writ petition, the respondent No. 1 has approved the list submitted by the answering respondent No. 2 after analytical discussion of the materials placed before him. The respondent No. 1 has committed no error in passing the order impugned. ( 5 ) IT is strenuously submitted by Sri Misra that in the present case no dispute relating to election was raised, therefore, the question of making reference under Section 25 of the Societies registration Act, 1860, does not arise. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contention raised at the Bar. I am of the view that the order passed by respondent No. 1, a copy whereof is filed and marked as Annexure-5 to the writ petition, is eminently just and proper and it has been passed within the meaning of Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act. 1860. It is held that the respondent No. 1 has exclusive jurisdiction to approve the list of managing body and in such a situation, the matter does not require reference under Section 25 of the Societies registration Act, 1860. ( 6 ) IT is to be imbibed that reference was required to be made by respondent No. 1 only when dispute regarding election of office-bearers was raised before him. Here in the present case, there is no averment in the writ petition that there was any dispute regarding election of office bearers before respondent No. 1. Since there was no dispute regarding election of office-bearers before respondent No. 1. therefore, question of reference under Section 25 of the Societies Registration act. 1860, does not arise. ( 7 ) A close scrutiny of the order impugned dated 6. 7. 2001. Annexure-5 to the writ petition, reveals that the respondent No. 1 has given cogent and convincing reasons in approving the annual list of the managing body submitted by the answering respondent No. 2 with which I am at one. The order impugned does not require interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. ( 8 ) AS a result of the aforementioned discussion, the instant writ petition lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed. .