Rakesh Tiwari, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. This petition is directed against the orders dated 25-9-1999, 25-2-2000 and 1-4-2000 passed by Assistant Registrar. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of proceedings dated 8-2- 2000 and 22- 3-2000 conducted by respondents. 3. By order dated 25-9-1999 the Assistant Registrar held that term of the Committee of management of the society had come to an end and since no election was held within prescribed time, he appointed one Dr. Amar Bahadur Singh, Ex. President of the Society to identify the members of the society. By order dated 25-2-2000 the Assistant Registrar modified his earlier order dated 25-9-1999 and appointed a Committee of five persons to finalize the list of members of the society. It is alleged that on 8-3-2000 the members appointed by the Assistant Registrar finalized the list ex parte without notice to the petitioner and held that election on 22-3-2000 in which Jai Singh, Guru Narain Singh and Prabhu Singh were declared elected respectively as Secretary, Adhyaksh and Upadhyaksh. On the basis of aforesaid election dated 22-3-2000 list of office bearers was submitted by Sri Jai Singh before the Assistant Registrar, which was registered on 1-4-2000 in his favour. 4. The brief facts of the case are that Byalasi English School Society, Jalapur, Jaunpur is a Society which was registered on 13-11-1964 under the Societies Registration Act. The petitioner alleges that he has been continuously elected as Secretary of the aforesaid society since 1964. He and Udai Bhan Singh were lastly elected as Secretary and President in the elections of the society held on 5-6-1999. It is submitted that there is no specific term for the elected committee of management in the registered bye laws of the society but elections of the society but elections of the society are held every five years. The term of the Committee of management can be, therefore, safely said to be five years by precedence. 5. On 13-4-2000 notices were issued to respondents and three weeks time was allowed to respondents for filing counter- affidavit. 6. The short point involved in this petitioner under Section 24 (5) of the Societies Registration Act Assistant Registrar can authorize any member or officer of the society to finalize list of members. Section 24 (5) of the Act reads as under: "24 (5 ). 6. The short point involved in this petitioner under Section 24 (5) of the Societies Registration Act Assistant Registrar can authorize any member or officer of the society to finalize list of members. Section 24 (5) of the Act reads as under: "24 (5 ). The Registrar after such inspection or investigation, give such direction to the society or to its governing body or any officer thereof, as he may think fit, for removal of any defects or irregularities within such time as may be specified and in the event of default in taking action according to such direction, the Registrar may proceed to take action under Section 12-D or Section 13-D, as the case may be. " 7. The orders have been assailed by the Counsel for the petitioner on the ground that petitioner is Secretary of the Society since 1974 and in elections of 1985 he was elected as secretary but no notice, whatsoever, was given to him by the Assistant Registrar while modifying the order dated 25-9-1999 vide his order dated 25-2-2000 which is mandatory as per Section 32 of the Societies Registration Act. 8. Further argument of the petitioner is that Section 24 (5) of the Act does not empower Registrar to appoint any member to finalize the list of members of the Society as per law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in 1990 ALJ page-743, Harish Chandra Gupta. He submits that only the Assistant Registrar himself is empowered to finalize list of the members and hold elections of the society. 9. The Division Bench of this Court in Harish Chandra Guptas case (surpa) has held that nominee of the Registrar is not competent to take any decision regarding list of members. It has further been held that considering the scheme in Section 25 of the Act, settlement of a dispute of that nature must proceed with by calling of a meeting and issuing notices to the members by the Registrar himself for settlement of valid list of members of the society. 10. From perusal of Section 24 (5) of the Act it is apparent that the Registrar after inspection/investigation may give such direction to the society or its Governing body for removal of any defect/irregularity. 10. From perusal of Section 24 (5) of the Act it is apparent that the Registrar after inspection/investigation may give such direction to the society or its Governing body for removal of any defect/irregularity. The powers of Registrar under the aforesaid provision are for removal of defects/irregularities in functioning of the society and do not empower the Registrar to appoint any member of the finalize the list of members of the society as per law laid down in the the case of Harish Chandra (supra ). 11. In the present case, contention of the petitioner is that he was not given notice before the Registrar undertook to finalize list of valid members. No dispute about the elections has been raised but due to interim order by this Court elected body cannot function. 12. In view of the facts stated above it would be expedient in the interest of justice to direct the the Assistant Registrar Chits and Funds to hear and decide the objections of the petition to the list of members of the society, if any, filed within time one month from the date of production of the certified copy of this order and if there is no change in the list, declare result of the election held on 1-4-1999 as valid and let that society to function. In case objection of the petitioner finds favour, the Assistant Registrar shall verify and prepare a fresh list of members himself within a period of one month thereafter and hold elections within a period of further two months the date of finalization of the list of members in accordance with law. 13. With the above directions the writ petition is disposed of. 14. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .