JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Shri Sudhakar Pandey, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri K.N. Rai, the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition, as alleged by the petitioner is, that the respondent No. 3 was removed as a member of the Society by a resolution dated 20th February, 1982, which information, was sent to the Assistant Registrar. On 3rd January, 1991, an election was held, in which one Gorakh Nath Yadav was elected as the Secretary and the petitioner Kamleshwar Prasad Yadav was elected as the Deputy Secretary. It is stated that Gorakh Nath died on 17th April, 1992, and by a resolution dated 10th May, 1992, the petitioner No. 2 was allowed to work as the Secretary. It is further alleged that on 20th of February, 2001, fresh elections were held in which Kedar Nath Yadav was elected as the President and the petitioner No. 2 was elected as the Secretary. Relevant papers were submitted on 23rd October, 2001 and the Registrar, by its order dated 24.11.2001, accepted the list of office bearers of the Society submitted by the petitioner No. 2 and also renewed the registration of the Society by an order dated 24.11.2001. Based on the aforesaid order of the Registrar, the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari also attested the signatures of the petitioner No. 2 as the Manager of the educational institution which was being run by the Society. 3. It transpires that the respondent No. 3 Bachcha Nand Yadav, alleging himself to be the Secretary of the Society, filed a recall application on 30th April, 2002, on which, notices were issued to the petitioners, and an ex parte order dated 24th of May, 2002 was passed by the Registrar recalling its earlier order dated 24.11.2001. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, filed Writ Petition No. 24325 of 2002 which was allowed by a judgment dated 8th of July, 2003 and the order of the Registrar dated 24th May, 2002 was set aside and the matter was remitted again to the said authority to decide the matter afresh after hearing the parties concerned. 4. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, filed Writ Petition No. 24325 of 2002 which was allowed by a judgment dated 8th of July, 2003 and the order of the Registrar dated 24th May, 2002 was set aside and the matter was remitted again to the said authority to decide the matter afresh after hearing the parties concerned. 4. Based on the aforesaid directions, the parties filed their pleadings and documents before the Registrar and the matter was duly considered by the Assistant Registrar, who again passed the impugned order dated 3rd September, 2003 directing the list of office bearers of the respondent No. 3 to be registered under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition. Based on the order dated 3.9.2003, the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari passed an order dated 30.6.2004 attesting the signatures of respondent No. 3 against which Writ Petition No. 24541 of 2004 has been filed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a valid election was held, in which the petitioner was validly elected as the Secretary, and that, the Registrar had rightly registered the list of the office bearers under Section 4 of the Act, and that the Assistant Registrar had committed a manifest error in recalling its order and further registering the list of the office bearers supplied by the respondent No. 3. The learned counsel submitted that the Assistant Registrar had travelled beyond its jurisdiction and powers in considering and deciding a dispute between two rival Committees of Management. The learned counsel submitted that if the Assistant Registrar came to a conclusion and found that there was doubt as to which Committee of Management was a validly elected Committee, he had no power to adjudicate upon such a dispute and the Assistant Registrar could have only referred the dispute for adjudication under Section 25 of the Act before the Prescribed Authority. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon various decisions of this Court, namely, Vijay Narain Singh v. Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits Registration, U.P. Lucknow and others, 1981 UPLBEC 308; The Society, Ganesh Baba Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Birpur, District Ghazipur and another v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi Kshettra, Varanasi and others, 1987 UPLBEC 60; Committee of Management, Sri Lallan Misra Shikshan Sansthan Sohnag, Deoria and another v. Assistant Registrar, Chits Fund and Societies, Gorakhpur and another, (1993) 1 UPLBEC 690; Committee of Management, Gramothan Shiksha Parishad Gramothan Junior High School Barwala, Distt. Muzaffarnagar and another, 1987 UPLBEC 989, and Urwa Bazar Educational Society, Urwa Bazar, Gorakhpur and another v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Division Gorakhpur and others, 1988 UPLBEC 515. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Assistant Registrar committed a manifest error in relying upon the affidavits of eight founder members of the Society and submitted that these eight members were relatives of the erstwhile President Gorakh Nath Yadav and that relatives are debarred from becoming members of the Society as per the bye-laws of the Society. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner to rebut the allegations made by the Presiding Officer before the Assistant Registrar, inasmuch as the complaint and the documents filed by the respondents was not given to the petitioner. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent submitted that a total fraud was played by the petitioner in submitting the list of the office bearers who were not even members of the Society and that a complete fabrication of the records was submitted by the petitioner, which was rightly rejected by the Assistant Registrar, after he made an investigation and found that the documents submitted by the petitioner were forged and unreliable. The learned counsel submitted that such a limited enquiry could be made by the Assistant Registrar on the administrative side while registering the list of the office bearers under Section 4 of the Act. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for respondent placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in Shambhu Kumar Tripathi v. Asst. The learned counsel submitted that such a limited enquiry could be made by the Assistant Registrar on the administrative side while registering the list of the office bearers under Section 4 of the Act. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for respondent placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in Shambhu Kumar Tripathi v. Asst. Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Allahabad and others, 1992 (2) ALR 224; Committee of Management, Kisan Shiksha Sadan, Banksahi, District Basti and another v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur and another, 1995 (2) UPLBEC 1242; and Kranti Kumar Chaturvedi and another v. District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Dehat and others, 1995 (3) ESC 166. 8. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate to peruse Section 3-A and Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act. Section 3-A provides for renewal of the certificate of Registrar. Sub-clause (4) of Section 3-A provides as under : “(4) Every application for renewal of the certificate shall be accompanied by a list of members of the managing body elected after the registration of the society or after the renewal of certificate of registration and also the certificate sought to be renewed unless dispensed with by the Registrar on the ground of its loss or destruction or other sufficient cause.” 9. This provision is linked and has to be read with Section 4 of the Act which reads as under : “4. Annual list of managing body to be filed.—Once in every year, on or before the fourteenth day succeeding the day on 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 the Registrar of Joint-stock Companies, of the names, addresses and occupations of the governors, council, directors, committee, or other governing body then entrusted with the management of the affairs of the society.” 10. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions indicates that an application for renewal of the certificate has to be accompanied by a list of members of the managing body. Section 4 provides that a list of the members of the managing committee is to be filed every year with the Registrar. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions indicates that an application for renewal of the certificate has to be accompanied by a list of members of the managing body. Section 4 provides that a list of the members of the managing committee is to be filed every year with the Registrar. The proviso to sub-clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 4 indicates that the counter signatures of the old members are also to be obtained while submitting a fresh list of the office bearers of the Society. 11. In Committee of Management, Kisan Shiksha Sadan, Banksahi, District Basti (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that the list maintained by the Registrar under Section 4 of the Act is for the purpose of performing his administrative functions as the Registrar, and that Section 25 of the Act provides that whenever any doubt or dispute is raised regarding the election of members of a managing body of a Society, the Registrar may refer such doubt or dispute to the Prescribed Authority for his decision. The Division Bench further held that while exercising this power, whether to refer or not any doubt or dispute relating to the election of members of the managing body of a Society to the Prescribed Authority, the Registrar was required to apply his mind to the facts of the case and take a decision. The Court further held that while taking a decision, the Registrar would be justified to take into account all the relevant circumstances, and further concluded that it was the duty of the Registrar to enquire as to whether the objections raised are valid or not and whether the said dispute was required to be referred to the Prescribed Authority or not. 12. In Shambhu Kumar Tripathi (supra), the Court held that the Assistant Registrar, while considering whether the list of the office bearers should be registered under Section 4 or not, was required to consider, for its administrative satisfaction, as to whether the list of the office bearers were genuine or fabricated. 13. 12. In Shambhu Kumar Tripathi (supra), the Court held that the Assistant Registrar, while considering whether the list of the office bearers should be registered under Section 4 or not, was required to consider, for its administrative satisfaction, as to whether the list of the office bearers were genuine or fabricated. 13. In Kranti Kumar Chaturvedi (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that the Registrar has the power to cancel the renewal of registration certificate if it was found that the said renewal of the registration had been obtained by fraud and by misrepresentation of fact, and that, it was not necessary to refer the dispute under Section 25 of the Act. The Division Bench held that Section 25 of the Act was only attracted when there was no dispute in respect of the registration of the Society or its renewal of certificate and that there was only a dispute between two rival parties, where each one was claiming to be a validly elected body. The Division Bench further held that in such a situation, the dispute between two rival parties had to be referred for adjudication under Section 25 of the Act. 14. In the light of the aforesaid decisions and from a perusal of the impugned order, the Court finds that the authority has given a specific finding that the signatures of Gorakh Nath Yadav, Ex. President, on the documents submitted by the petitioner, did not tally with his real signatures, and therefore, submitted that the documents and the registers submitted by the petitioner were forged and fabricated for the purpose of raising a sham dispute. The Assistant Registrar also found that the signatures of the Manager was never attested from the educational authority. The Assistant Registrar, on the other hand, found that the documents and registers filed by the respondents was genuine which recorded the signatures of Gorakh Nath Yadav whose signatures tallied with the signatures provided by the educational authority. The Assistant Registrar also found that 8 out of 9 life members had given their affidavits stating therein that the list of the office bearers submitted by the respondent No. 3 was genuine and that the list of the office bearers submitted by the petitioner were forged and fabricated documents. The Assistant Registrar consequently directed to register the list of the office bearers submitted by respondent No. 3 under Section 4-A of the Act. The Assistant Registrar consequently directed to register the list of the office bearers submitted by respondent No. 3 under Section 4-A of the Act. 15. In the light of the aforesaid findings, which are based on the findings of fact and, which has not been seriously disputed nor challenged before this Court, this Court is of the opinion that the matter is not such which is required to be referred under Section 25 of the Act for adjudication, inasmuch as the Court is of the opinion that a sham dispute has been raised by the petitioner. The list of the office bearers submitted by the petitioner appears to be a forged document and is not supported by the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 4-A of the Act. 16. In the light of the aforesaid, the Court is of the opinion that in the present facts and circumstances of the case, there was no dispute between the two rival Committees of Management which required adjudication under Section 25 of the Act. The Registrar was competent to examine the documents submitted by the petitioner, on the administrative side, while dealing with the matter under Section 4 of the Act. 17. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that 8 out of 9 office bearers were relatives and were not competent to become members of the Society is patently erroneous inasmuch as the bye-laws of the Society does not impose any such embargo. 18. The Court is further of the opinion that full opportunity of hearing was provided by the Registrar and that the objections and the documents were also provided to the petitioners for its perusal and for filing their objections. Consequently, the contention of the petitioners that proper opportunity was not given to them is patently erroneous. 19. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the Assistant Registrar under Section 4 of the Act registering the list of the office bearers of the respondent No. 3 does not suffer from any error of law. 20. In the light of the aforesaid, the order of the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari attesting the signatures of the respondent No. 3 also does not suffer from any error of law. 21. In view of the aforesaid both the writ petitions fail and are dismissed. ———