JUDGMENT Honble Dilip Gupta, J.—Sri Shankar Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Sirsani, district Auraiya (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Society’) and Sachi Kumari claiming herself to be its ad hoc Manager have filed this petition for quashing the order dated 24th June, 2008 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies & Chits, Kanpur Division, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Deputy Registrar’) by which the annual list of office bearers of the Society for the period 2007-08 submitted by respondent No. 4 Sheo Prakash Dubey under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) has been registered. The petitioners have also sought a direction upon the Deputy Registrar to register the amended bye-laws of the Society as well as to register the annual list of office bearers submitted by the petitioner-Society for the period 2007-08. 2. The Society was initially registered under the Act on 19th May, 1971 and the last renewal is valid upto 10th October, 2010. Under the bye-laws of the Society there are two types of members namely ordinary members and life members. The subscription fee of ordinary members is Rs. 11/- while that of life members is Rs. 251/-. A member is entitled to vote or become an office bearer only after six months from the date he is enrolled as a member. The term of an ordinary member is 1 year which can be renewed on payment of the requisite fee. Even the life members are required to get their membership renewed in the Annual Meeting of the Society but without payment of any fees. The Executive Body of the Society consists of a minimum of 15 members and its office bearers are elected from amongst these 15 members. The term of the Executive Body of the Society as well as the office bearers is five years. 3. The last election of the Executive Body of the Society was held on 20th June, 2006 in which Sheo Prakash Dubey was elected as the Manager, Satish Chandra was elected as the President and Sachi Kumari was elected as Mantri. This election was registered by the Deputy Registrar under Section 4 of the Act. 4. 3. The last election of the Executive Body of the Society was held on 20th June, 2006 in which Sheo Prakash Dubey was elected as the Manager, Satish Chandra was elected as the President and Sachi Kumari was elected as Mantri. This election was registered by the Deputy Registrar under Section 4 of the Act. 4. It is stated in the petition that on 1st May, 2007 some members of the Society submitted an application before the President of the Society stating that the Manager, Sheo Prakash Dubey, was working against the interest of the Society and requested that a meeting be called for taking appropriate action. A meeting was held on 20th May, 2007 in which it was noticed that there was no provision for removal of an office bearer under the bye-laws and, therefore, the bye-laws were suitably amended. In the meeting subsequently held on 28th July, 2007 it was decided that the resolution dated 20th May, 2007 be sent to the Deputy Registrar. It is further stated in the petition that thereafter notices were sent by the Deputy Registrar to the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 Sheo Prakash Dubey inviting objections but before any order could be passed a communication dated 30th October, 2007 was alleged to have been sent by Sachi Kumari to the Deputy Registrar mentioning therein that the proceedings for amendment of the bye-laws have been dropped. However, in the meeting of the Society held on 24th January, 2008 the bye-laws of the Society were again amended and the Manager, respondent No. 4 Sheo Prakash Dubey was also suspended and petitioner No. 2 Sachi Kumari was elected as the ad hoc Manager. The minutes of the meeting held on 24th January, 2008 and the suspension order of respondent No. 4 were thereafter sent to the Deputy Registrar. 5. The case of the respondents, however, is that two members of the Executive Body of the Society namely Vidhyadhar Tiwari and Jagdish Chandra Dubey had in the meantime died and thus the membership of the Executive Body was reduced to 13. 5. The case of the respondents, however, is that two members of the Executive Body of the Society namely Vidhyadhar Tiwari and Jagdish Chandra Dubey had in the meantime died and thus the membership of the Executive Body was reduced to 13. In such circumstances, the Manager Sheo Prakash Dubey enrolled twenty life members and five ordinary members in April, 2007 and in the meeting held on 25th October, 2007 Shyam Babu Dubey was elected as the Treasurer in place of the deceased Treasurer Vidhyadhar Tiwari and Shrawan Kumar Singh Sengar was elected as the member of the Executive Body in place of deceased Jagdish Chandra Dubey. The list of the office bearers and members of the Executive Body was then submitted to the Deputy Registrar who registered it by the order dated 24th June, 2008, which order has been impugned in the present petition. 6. According to the petitioners, this is in contravention of the bye-laws of the Society as these two members of the General Body of the Society could not become members or office bearers of the Executive Body of the Society before the expiry of six months from the date of enrollment as members of the General Body of the Society. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri S.K. Mishra submitted that the Deputy Registrar failed to take into consideration the fact that persons enrolled as members could vote or be elected as office bearers only after a period of six months from the date of enrollment; that the affidavits filed by certain members that in fact no meeting took place on 18th October, 2007 and 25th October, 2007 have been ignored by the Deputy Registrar; that the election held by respondent No. 4 was not valid and in any case, once there was a dispute, the Deputy Registrar should have referred the matter to the Prescribed Authority for deciding the dispute under Section 25(1) of the Act and should not have himself decided the dispute. 8. 8. Sri Yogish Kumar Saxena learned counsel appearing for the respondent, however, submitted that the order dated 24th June, 2008 passed by the Deputy Registrar does not suffer from any infirmity and that the twenty life members and five ordinary members were enrolled after deposit of the subscription fee on the basis of the publication dated 25th March, 2007 and the final list of members of the Society consisting of thirty eight members (twenty five newly enrolled plus thirteen earlier) was published on 20th April, 2007. He, therefore, submitted that the newly enrolled members could become members of the Executive Body in the election held on 25th October, 2007 as six months had expired from the date of their enrollment. He further submitted that respondent No. 4 Sheo Prakash Dubey had never been suspended by the Society and nor is there any provision for suspending a Manager in the bye-laws of the Society. It is also his submission that since bona fide and genuine dispute did not exist, the Deputy Registrar was justified in passing the order dated 24th June, 2008. 9. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 10. The bye-laws of the Society provide that the Executive Body of the Society should have at least fifteen members. It is not in dispute that two members of the Executive Body had died. According to respondent No. 4 Sheo Prakash Dubey since membership of the Society had been reduced to thirteen, an advertisement was published on 25th March, 2007 inviting fresh enrollments of members between 2nd April, 2007 and 16th April, 2007 and on the basis of this advertisement, twenty life members and five ordinary members submitted applications and deposited the subscription amount. The final list of thirty eight members of the General Body was declared on 20th April, 2007. Two members were co-opted to the Executive Body and thereafter the list of fifteen office bearers and members of the Executive Body for the year 2007-08 was submitted by respondent No. 4 Sheo Prakash Dubey before the Deputy Registrar for registration under Section 4 of the Act. 11. The Deputy Registrar while deciding the matter framed four issues namely : (1) Whether twenty five members had been validly enrolled by Sheo Prakash Dubey and whether two members from these newly enrolled members were validly inducted in the Executive Body of the Society.? 11. The Deputy Registrar while deciding the matter framed four issues namely : (1) Whether twenty five members had been validly enrolled by Sheo Prakash Dubey and whether two members from these newly enrolled members were validly inducted in the Executive Body of the Society.? (2) Whether the list of office bearers submitted by Sheo Prakash Dubey for the year 2007-08 could be registered. (3) Whether the compromise dated 30th October, 2007 submitted by Sachi Kumari was valid. (4) Whether the meeting held on 20th May, 2007 for suspending the Manager and amending the bye-laws of the Society and the meeting held on 24th January, 2008 electing Sachi Kumari as ad hoc Manager are valid. 12. Issue No. 1 was decided in favour of Sheo Prakash Dubey as the Deputy Registrar found, after examination of the documents, that the enrollment of new members was in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the bye-laws of the Society and the final list of thirty eight members of the Society was published on 20th April, 2007. The Deputy Registrar also found that Shyam Babu Dubey and Shrawan Kumar Singh Sengar were validly inducted in Executive Body of the Society in the meeting held on 25th October, 2007 as the meeting was held after six months from the date of their enrollment as members. 13. Issue No. 2 was also decided in favour of Sheo Prakash Dubey as it was found that the two vacancies in the Executive Body of the Society had been validly filled up so as to bring the total members of the Executive Body to atleast fifteen which was in accordance with the bye-laws. However, in the papers submitted by Sachi Kumari, only thirteen members have been shown as members of the Executive Body which is contrary to the bye-laws of the Society. 14. Issue No. 3 was also decided against the petitioner and it was found that pursuant to the meeting held on 20th May, 2007 in which the bye-laws were amended, a compromise was submitted to the Deputy Registrar on 30th October, 2007 by Sachi Kumari that the proceedings for amending the bye-laws have been dropped and it was also noticed that the said compromise had been duly signed by office bearers of the Executive Body of the Society and was valid. 15. 15. Issue No. 4 was also decided against Sheo Prakash Dubey and it was found that the meeting held subsequently on 20th May, 2007 for amending the bye-laws and on 24th January, 2008 for suspending the Manager and electing Sachi Kumari as ad hoc Manager without giving notice to the twenty five members enrolled in April, 2007 to participate in the meeting was illegal. 16. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the circumstances of the case, the Deputy Registrar should have referred the matter to the Prescribed Authority and should not have decided it himself. 17. Learned counsel for the respondents has, however, placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Shri Babu Ram Shiksha Prasar Samiti (Reg. Society), Dist. Etah and another v. Deputy Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, Regional Office, Agra and others, 2007(9) ADJ 262 and has submitted that the Deputy Registrar can examine whether a person is a valid member of the Society or not. 18. The Court in the aforesaid judgment after considering the provisions of the Act and various Division Bench judgments of this Court held that the dispute as to whether a person is a valid member or not of the Society can be examined by the Assistant Registrar and he need not refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority. The observations are as follows : “On the basis of statutory provision, which covers the field and the view point of this Court the inevitable conclusion is, that whenever issue is raised before Registrar/Assistant Registrar/Deputy Registrar, that an incumbent is valid member or not within the scope and ambit of Section 15 of Societies Registration Act, 1860, the said question can be very looked into and decided by Registrar/Assistant Registrar/ Deputy Registrar, as the case may be, in view of wide amplitude of authority vested under Sections 22, 23, 24 of Societies Registration Act, 1860. Registration and renewal of registration of society is the exclusive domain of Registrar/Assistant Registrar/Deputy Registrar as the case may be, under Section 3 and 3-A of Societies Registration Act, 1860. Authority to accept, annual list of Managing Body, is also exclusive domain of Registrar/Assistant Registrar/Deputy Registrar as the case may be. Registration and renewal of registration of society is the exclusive domain of Registrar/Assistant Registrar/Deputy Registrar as the case may be, under Section 3 and 3-A of Societies Registration Act, 1860. Authority to accept, annual list of Managing Body, is also exclusive domain of Registrar/Assistant Registrar/Deputy Registrar as the case may be. While proceeding to exercise authority vested under Section 3-A or 4 of Societies Registration Act, 1860, in case election dispute or dispute in respect of continuance of office bearers is raised, then Registrar/Assistant Registrar/Deputy Registrar, may in his/her discretion, refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority, if he/she is satisfied that bona fide, genuine dispute has arisen, in respect of election or continuance of office bearers and in case dispute totally lacks bonafidies and is in genuine dispute, then reference is not at all required, and there is no impediment in the exercise of authority vested under Sections 3-A and 4 of Societies Registration Act, 1860. This action of Registrar/Assistant Registrar/Deputy Registrar, can always be tested on the parameters of judicial review. Apart from this, the group of persons on list being accepted under Section 4 are not remediless, as they can always assail the validity of the said list, after mustering support of one-fourth members of society, before the Prescribed Authority. Prescribed Authority gets jurisdiction to decide dispute in respect of election or continuance of office bearers, either on reference or on being moved by one-fourth members of the General Body. In entertaining dispute, on behalf of one fourth member of the general body of the society, Prescribed Authority, must satisfy himself that dispute has been raised by one fourth members of the General Body of society, who are members in term of Section 15 of Societies Registration Act, 1860, and once satisfaction is recorded on this score, then dispute can be adjudicated in summary manner, and in the event of negative finding being there, the Prescribed Authority will have no jurisdiction. The parties are thereafter free to approach Civil Court.” (emphasis supplied) 19. In the present case, the main issue before the Deputy Registrar was whether twenty five members had been validly enrolled as members of the Society. The parties are thereafter free to approach Civil Court.” (emphasis supplied) 19. In the present case, the main issue before the Deputy Registrar was whether twenty five members had been validly enrolled as members of the Society. In view of the decision of this Court in Shri Babu Ram Shiksha Prasar Samiti (supra), the Deputy Registrar committed no illegality in deciding this issue himself and he was not obliged to refer such a dispute to the Prescribed Authority. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Committee of Management, Dr. Lohiya Madhyamik Vidyalaya, District Farrukhabad/Kannauj and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(2) ESC 874 and has submitted that under all circumstances the Deputy Registrar should have referred the dispute to the Prescribed Authority. 21. It is no doubt true that when there is a dispute between two parties about the election of Committee of Management, the Deputy Registrar has to refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act, but it is also well established by now that the matter is not required to be referred to the Prescribed Authority in a mechanical manner and it is only when the Deputy Registrar, finds as a fact, that the dispute is bona fide and genuine that he is required to refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority. In this connection reference may be made to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Committee of Management, Rashtriya Junior High School (Society), Babhaniyaon, District Jaunpur v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi Region, Varanasi and others, (2005) 3 UPLBEC 2817, wherein it was observed : “It is the standard law that, if any, bonafide dispute as to two rival Committees of Managements is shown to be in existence to the Registrar or Assistant Registrar, a reference by him of the dispute to the Prescribed Authority follows as a matter of course but a bonafide dispute does come into existence merely because one member, even if he is a founder member, chooses simply to say or ascertain that he has a rival Committee and, therefore, a bonafide dispute as to Management exists. Sufficient prima facie material must be produced before the Registrar before he can validly exercise his jurisdiction of referring the dispute. Sufficient prima facie material must be produced before the Registrar before he can validly exercise his jurisdiction of referring the dispute. He must, simply put, be satisfied that there is something to refer and he is not merely sending litigations before the Prescribed Authority, without there being even a shadow of real cause for litigation.” 22. In the present case, as noticed above, the Deputy Registrar has found as a fact that twenty-five members had been validly enrolled in April, 2007 and this dispute about membership could be validly decided by him as held by this Court in Shri Babu Ram Shiksha Prasar Samiti (supra). The claim of the petitioner-Committee of Management is based on a meeting in which admittedly these twenty five newly enrolled members were not called to participate and nor can the suspension of the Manager be held to be valid in the absence of any provision in the bye-laws for suspending the Manager. Thus, it cannot be said that a bona fide and genuine dispute had been raised by the petitioner before the Deputy Registrar who was, therefore, not obliged to refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority. 23. However, if the petitioners are aggrieved they can still raise the dispute before the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein. This is precisely what was also observed by this Court in Sri Babu Ram Shiksha Prasar Samiti (supra). 24. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. This order shall, however, not prevent the petitioners from availing the alternative remedy provided for under Section 25(1) of the Act in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein and in such an event any observation made by this Court shall not come in the way of the Prescribed Authority in deciding the matter on merits. ————