JUDGMENT Arun Tandon, J.—Heard Sri K. C. Shukla on behalf of the petitioner Sri Saurabh Srivastava and I. K. Mishra, holding brief of Sri K. K. Tripathi on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the Committee of Management Sri Kidwai Junior High School, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur through its alleged Manager Sri Uma Kant Pandey against an order passed by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act, namely the S.D.M., Kanpur Nagar dated 18th May, 1999. 3. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the writ petition. 4. There is a society duly registered under the Societies Registration Act in the name and style of Sri Kidwai Junior High School Samiti, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur. The said society has established an institution in the name and style of Sri Kidwai Junior High School Samiti, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur. The institution at the relevant point of time was only recognized as Junior High School under the provisions of U. P. Basic Education Act, 1972. 5. The elections of the Committee of Management of the institution are said to have taken place on 12th May, 1996, in which Sri Shiv Dutt Dwivedi alleges to have been elected as Manager and Sri Uma Kant Pandey claimed to have been elected as Deputy Manager. A rival set of elections were set up dated 14th December, 1997, in which the Committee of Management headed by Sri Jauhari Lal Dwivedi as Manager claims to have been elected. 6. The controversy with regards to legality of the elections held on 14th December, 1997, was referred for adjudication to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. 7. The Prescribed Authority, by means of the order dated 12th March, 1999, held that the elections which had taken place on 12th May, 1996, were legal and valid and since the term of the elected Committee of Management was three years, there was no occasion for any mid-term election dated 14th December, 1997, alleged to be held by Sri Jauhari Lal Dwivedi. 8. Against the said order of the Prescribed Authority dated 12th March, 1999, a review application was filed by Sri Jauhari Lal Dwivedi on the ground that his claim has not been noticed in the order dated 12th March, 1999. 8. Against the said order of the Prescribed Authority dated 12th March, 1999, a review application was filed by Sri Jauhari Lal Dwivedi on the ground that his claim has not been noticed in the order dated 12th March, 1999. Since the review application was not being decided, Writ Petition No. 15834 of 1999 was filed by the Committee of Management with Sri Jauhari Lal Dwivedi as Manager. The said writ petition was disposed of with the direction upon the Prescribed Authority to consider and decide the review application on merit afresh ignoring the fact that it had been withdrawn by the respondent No. 6 Sri Naresh Chandra Chaturvedi. In compliance of the order of this Court, the Prescribed Authority passed an order on 18th May, 1999, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 9. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the aforesaid order passed by the Prescribed Authority in Case No. 1 of 1997 is patently misconceived inasmuch as the institution in question is only a Junior High School and the dispute of the elections, which was referred for adjudication to the Prescribed Authority pertains to the office bearers of the society, which runs and manages the said Junior High School. It is, therefore, contended that the Prescribed Authority was not justified in refusing to decide the reference on merits on the ground that the elections for continuing the Committee of Management of the institution have taken place in accordance with the scheme of administration and rival disputes of elections are required to be decided by the Deputy Director of Education under Section 16A (7) of the Intermediate Education Act. He has, therefore, wrongly allowed the review application and set aside his earlier order dated 26th March, 1999, whereby the elections of the petitioner dated 12th May, 1997, were held to be valid. 10. On behalf of the respondent, it has been fairly conceded that the order passed by the Prescribed Authority is based on misconception of fact that the institution is a recognized Intermediate College, when as a matter of fact, on the relevant date the institution was only a Junior High School and as such the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act were not attracted at all to the dispute of elections in question. 11. 11. From the order dated 18th May, 1999, it is apparently clear that the Prescribed Authority has allowed the review application and has set aside the order dated 12th March, 1999, only on the ground that the dispute pertaining to the Committee of Management of the institution is necessarily to be decided by the Deputy Director of Education under Section 16A (7) of the Intermediate Education Act. 12. As already noticed above, the institution at the relevant time was recognized as a Junior High School only and the provisions of Intermediate Education Act were not applicable to the said institution. Further the elections which were subject-matter of consideration in Case No. 1/97 pertain to the office bearers of the society and this Court in the judgment in 1988 UPLBEC 732, has specifically held that the Intermediate Education Act and Societies Registration Act are not over-lapping and the power of the Registrar under the Societies Registration Act and the Deputy Director of Education under Section 16A (7) operate in separate fields. 13. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, the order dated 18th May, 1999, passed by the Prescribed Authority cannot be legally sustained and is hereby quashed. 14. The matter is remanded to the Prescribed Authority to reconsider the application for review dated 26th March, 1999, being Case No. 1 of 1997, at the earliest possible, preferably within one month from the date, a certified copy of this order is filed before him. 15. It is needless to point out that before deciding upon the application, the Prescribed Authority shall afford opportunity of hearing to the parties and shall also permit exchange of documents. 16. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.