SABHAJEET YADAV, J. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 27. 10. 2008 (Annexure-13 of the writ petition) passed by Prescribed Authority/deputy Collector, Saidpur, Ghazipur in exercise of his power under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act, whereby he has decided the dispute of members of general body of society and directed for holding fresh election of office bearers of society. 2. The facts leading to the case are that Krishak Sangh, Uchauri, Ghazipur is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 1860 Act ). It is stated in the writ petition that the aforesaid society was registered on 4. 8. 1952 by the petitioner No. 2 being one of the founder member of the aforesaid society. The name of answering respondent was also mentioned at SI. No. 7 in the Memorandum of Association. The petitioner No. 2 being a founder member of the society participated in the election held on 30. 5. 1995. It is stated that a writ petition No. 32428 of 2001 was decided on 26. 10. 2002 with a direction to the Assistant Registrar to finalize the list of members and to hold the election of committee of management. In pursuance thereof Assistant Registrar decided the validity of members of society on 25. 8. 2003 by which 14 members were found to be valid members of society. The name of petitioner No. 2 was mentioned at serial No. 13 of the list consisting of aforesaid members. A copy of order dated 25. 8. 2003 passed by Assistant Registrar is on record as Annexure-2 of the writ petition. 3. Against the order dated 25. 8. 2003 Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 39354 of 2003 and Writ Petition No. 46411 of 2003 were filed before this Court, which were allowed on 9. 4. 2004 holding that the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi has determined electoral college only on the basis that these 14 members are identical in both the lists submitted by contesting groups. It is stated that on a complaint, Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits U. P. , Lucknow called the record from the Assistant Registrar, Varanasi and decided the matter, by order dated 8. 12. It is stated that on a complaint, Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits U. P. , Lucknow called the record from the Assistant Registrar, Varanasi and decided the matter, by order dated 8. 12. 2005 with the direction to the Assistant Registrar to hold the election of committee of management from undisputed list of members of general body of society from which the election was held in the year 1995. Thereafter, the Assistant Registrar published the list of members on 19. 8. 2006 without deciding the membership and inviting any objection from the outgoing office bearers for holding the election of office bearers of society. Against the order dated 19. 8. 2006 passed by Assistant Registrar, the petitioners filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51157 of 2006 before this Court, which was disposed of on 14. 9. 2006 with the direction to the Registrar to clarify the list of members of society who were participated in 1995 election. Thereafter the Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits U. P. , Lucknow decided the matter vide order dated 11. 4. 2007 and published the list of 115 members as valid members of society with a direction to the Assistant Registrar to hold election of the office bearers of society from amongst them. 4. Against the order dated 11. 4. 2007 the respondent No. 5 filed writ petition No. 22336 of 2007 before this Court. It is stated that the Assistant Registrar published the election programme on 16. 6. 2007 mentioning the valid members of the society. Against the aforesaid order, the respondent No. 5 filed writ petition No. 28657 of 2007 before this Court. All the writ petitions were consolidated and dismissed by this Court on 5. 7. 2007. It is further stated that the election of office bearers of the society was held on 8. 7. 2007 from amongst the valid members of society in which the petitioners Sri Loknath Singh was elected as President and Sri Ram Janam Singh was elected as Secretary. The recognition of aforesaid election of society was granted by the Assistant Registrar by registering the list of office bearers of the society on the basis of election dated 8. 7. 2007. Against the aforesaid order dated 8. 7. 2007 the respondent No. 5 filed writ petition No. 41926 of 2007 before this Court, which was dismissed on 3. 9. 2007. 5. 7. 2007. Against the aforesaid order dated 8. 7. 2007 the respondent No. 5 filed writ petition No. 41926 of 2007 before this Court, which was dismissed on 3. 9. 2007. 5. It is stated that there was no dispute in respect of election of society, which was held on 8. 7. 2007 by Assistant Registrar. The Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits directed the Assistant Registrar to look into the matter and take appropriate steps for compliance of the order passed by this Court. The Assistant Registrar referred the matter before the Prescribed Authority on 20. 3. 2008. The respondent No. 5 filed a written complaint before the Prescribed Authority on 12. 5. 2008 claiming that the aforesaid election was not held from amongst valid members of society. Against the aforesaid complaint, the petitioner No. 2 filed an objection that the complaint filed by respondent No. 5 is not maintainable on the ground that the same has not been filed by 1/4 members of the society. The Prescribed Authority without deciding the validity of election of society dated 8. 7. 2007 has passed impugned order dated 27. 10. 2008 whereby he finalized the list of valid members of society and directed to the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi to hold election of office bearers of society from amongst the aforesaid list under Section 25 (2) of the 1860 Act, hence this petition. 6. A short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 5/sri Rajendra Prasad Pandey himself raising preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition against the impugned order. It is stated that the remedy available to the petitioners or any other aggrieved person is to approach competent civil Court to establish his membership on the basis of evidence. In any case the dispute with regard to the membership of general body of society cannot be adjudicated or decided under extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is further stated that the petitioners are guilty of suppressing material facts deliberately and apart from other illegalities, the present writ petition lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed with costs inasmuch as the petitioners have not disclosed relevant facts in the present writ petition. 7. It is stated that the last undisputed election of society was held in the year 1995. 7. It is stated that the last undisputed election of society was held in the year 1995. In the said election there were 115 members of general body of society. It is stated that the society is running an inter college namely Krishak Inter College, Uchauri, District Ghazipur. The affairs of administration of which is managed by a committee of management duly constituted in accordance with the provisions of approved scheme of administration and office bearers of society as well as that of committee of management of the college are different in sense from the beginning. Earlier the tenure of office bearers of society as well as committee of management of the college was three years and elections were being held at an interval of every three years. However after 1995 election the scheme of administration was amended and the tenure of office bearers of committee of management became five years. But up to 1995 the election of office bearers of society as well as of college were being held simultaneously. It is stated that last undisputed election was held in the year 1995 on the basis of this list of general body. Subsequently in the year 1998 the dispute arose in the society due to which neither the list of office bearers could be recognized nor any election of society could be held and series of litigations started. 8. It is stated in the said short counter affidavit that initially one Raj Nath Singh started claiming himself as the President of society. When the dispute was created first time then a writ petition was filed before this Court by the petitioners in which a-direction was issued by this Court on 26. 10. 2002 to the Assistant Registrar, Firm, Societies and Chits, Varanasi to take step for holding fresh election. In pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the Assistant Registrar firstly proceeded to finalize the electoral college on the basis of evidence adduced by both the parties in support of genuineness of membership shown in their respective lists. But the Assistant Registrar did not decide the dispute of membership and passed an order dated 25. 8. 2003 wherein he finalized the list of 14 members of general body and directed for holding fresh election from amongst those 14 members. It is stated that those 14 members were common in both the lists supplied by rival claimants. But the Assistant Registrar did not decide the dispute of membership and passed an order dated 25. 8. 2003 wherein he finalized the list of 14 members of general body and directed for holding fresh election from amongst those 14 members. It is stated that those 14 members were common in both the lists supplied by rival claimants. The deponent/respondent No. 5 challenged the order dated 25. 8. 2003 passed by Assistant Registrar by filing writ petition No. 39354 of 2003. The rival claimant namely Kuber Nath Singh also challenged the aforesaid order passed by Assistant Registrar by filing writ petition No. 46411 of 2003. Both the writ petitions were connected and decided on 9. 4. 2004 by this Court. The writ petitions were allowed and the order passed by the Assistant Registrar dated 25. 8. 2003 was quashed and he was directed to re-hear the matter by affording full opportunity of hearing to both the parties and decide the membership issue and thereafter hold election expeditiously. A copy of the order dated 9. 4. 2004 is on record as Annexure-2 of the short counter affidavit. 9. It is stated that in pursuant of direction of this Court dated 9. 4. 2004 the Assistant Registrar proceeded to finalize electoral college of the society in question. The deponent produced original documents and approved membership of 115 members but the rival claimant avoided his level best and did not produce any document in support of his contention, thus to linger the matter he moved an application before the Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow to transfer the case from Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi. On his application the records were summoned by the Registrar who proceeded himself to decide the issue and ultimately decided the dispute of membership vide his order dated 8. 12. 2005 in which the same list which was being relied by deponent-respondent No. 5 was found valid list. A true copy of the order passed by Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, U. P. Lucknow dated 8. 12. 2005 is on record asannexure-3 of the short counter affidavit. The Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow has also directed for holding fresh election, then one Raj Nath Singh and Shyam Narain Singh filed writ petition No. 1017 of 2006 challenging the order dated 8. 12. 2005. 12. 2005 is on record asannexure-3 of the short counter affidavit. The Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow has also directed for holding fresh election, then one Raj Nath Singh and Shyam Narain Singh filed writ petition No. 1017 of 2006 challenging the order dated 8. 12. 2005. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed finally after exchange of affidavits, by this Court on 10. 5. 2006. Against the aforesaid order dated 10. 5. 2006 Special Appeal No. 545 of 2006 was filed, which too was dismissed vide order dated 4. 7. 2006. 10. It is further stated that after dismissal of writ petitions and Special Appeal filed by rival claimants, the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi Region, Varanasi proceeded to hold election and issued election programme on 19. 8. 2006. Along with the said election schedule he also published list of members of general body finalized by Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, U. P. Lucknow. It is stated that in the said election seven persons filed their nomination papers for different posts and since there was no rival claimant on any of the posts hence the election was held unanimously. A decision to this effect was taken by Election Officer/assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Varanasi on 12. 9. 2006. When the election proceedings were going on then Raj Nath Singh and Shyam Narain Singh filed a civil suit in the civil Court, Ghazipur. In the said suit, they sought a decree for declaration of valid list of members of general body of society. In the said suit an application was also moved for exemption of notice to the defendants under Section 80, CPC. The aforesaid application was rejected by the trial Court and civil revision was also dismissed on 30. 10. 2006 against the said order of trial Court. 11. It is stated that the dispute was initially raised by Kuber Nath Singh who happens to be Manager of Committee of Management. However, he is the member of general body of society. When he realised that his claim is without any basis then he submitted an application before the authorities and accepted the list relied upon by the deponent being the genuine list. Thereafter, Raj Nath Singh and Shyam Narain Singh came into litigation on one pretext and another. However, he is the member of general body of society. When he realised that his claim is without any basis then he submitted an application before the authorities and accepted the list relied upon by the deponent being the genuine list. Thereafter, Raj Nath Singh and Shyam Narain Singh came into litigation on one pretext and another. Ultimately they lost from the level of Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi Region, Varanasi and even from this Court. Thereafter they tried their level best by filing civil suit in which they could not get any relief. In the entire litigation the present petitioners were not in the scene nor they were parties in the litigation. 12. It is stated that after dismissal of Civil Suit on 30. 10. 2006 first time, present petitioner No. 2 took over charge of litigation on behalf of rival claimants. He is not even member of general body of society and also has no concerned with the society. It is pointed out that one Lok Nath Singh son of Late Dharamraj Singh resident of Hiradharpur, post-Bhimapar, District Ghazipur was the founder member of the society. The petitioner No. 2 taking advantage of similarity of his name with the aforesaid Lok Nath Singh first time came into litigation and filed a writ petition No. 51157 of 2006. In the said writ petition only claim set up by petitioner No. 2 was that he is member of general body of society but his name was not included in the list of general body of the society. The writ petition was dismissed on 14. 9. 2006 with the liberty to approach the Registrar, Societies, U. P. , Lucknow for redressed of his grievances. It appears that petitioner No. 2 submitted a representation along with the order passed by this Court dated 14. 9. 2006 before the Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, U. P. , Lucknow, thereupon vide order dated 11. 4. 2007 the Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, U. P. , Lucknow has changed the entire list of members of society and approved the list supplied by the petitioner No. 2, which was totally forged list. It is pointed out that list approved by the Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, U. P. , Lucknow was entirely different list, which was never filed at any forum. It is pointed out that list approved by the Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, U. P. , Lucknow was entirely different list, which was never filed at any forum. It was fresh list before the Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, U. P. , Lucknow in which relatives, family members and associates of the petitioner No. 2 were shown as members. The aforesaid list was never supplied by the earlier litigants Kuber Nath Singh, Raj Nath Singh or Shyam Narain Singh. The copy of order dated 11. 4. 2007 passed by the Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, U. P. , Lucknow is on record as Annexure 12 to the short counter affidavit. From a perusal of order dated 11. 4. 2007, it is apparent that there was neither adjudication nor any discussion by the Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, U. P. , Lucknow on the membership issue and on the surmises and conjectures list earlier finalized by the same authority was entirely changed. 13. It is stated that the deponent challenged the aforesaid order dated 11. 4. 2007 passed by the Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, U. P. , Lucknow by filing writ petition before this Court, which was dismissed by this Court on the ground that election is going on and in case the deponent is aggrieved, he may challenge the same after result is declared. After dismissal of writ petition filed by the deponent, the election was held on the basis of forged list of members of General Body of the Society; and after result was declared, the deponent filed a Writ Petition No. 11926 of 2007, wherein this Court was of the view that in earlier writ petition it was held that the petitioner of the said writ petition can challenge election after availing all statutory remedies available. The writ petition was not treated as statutory remedy, accordingly same was dismissed. It was observed that the dispute can be raised before the Prescribed Authority either by 1/4 members of the General Body or it can be adjudicated upon by the Prescribed Authority on a reference made to him by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits or the dispute can be raised before the Civil Court. 14. It was observed that the dispute can be raised before the Prescribed Authority either by 1/4 members of the General Body or it can be adjudicated upon by the Prescribed Authority on a reference made to him by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits or the dispute can be raised before the Civil Court. 14. It is stated that since there was serious dispute of membership of the general body and election held on the basis of forged list was no election in the eyes of law as such the matter was referred to the Prescribed Authority by Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi vide order dated 20. 3. 2008 (wrongly mentioned as 20. 3. 2007 at page 69-71 enclosed as part of Annexure-10 of the writ petition) and on reference so received from the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Varanasi Region, Varanasi, the Prescribed Authority decided the dispute vide impugned order dated 27. 10. 2008 after hearing all the concerned parties, whereby he has finalized Electoral College and has directed for holding fresh election on the basis of valid list of members of General Body of the Society. Categorical finding of fact has been recorded by the Prescribed Authority, which suffers from no infirmity. Against the findings of fact recorded by the Prescribed Authority, present writ petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed summarily with costs. 15. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri K. Shahi for the petitioners and Sri P. M. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S. P. Pandey for respondent No. 5 as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4. 16. In given facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners in nut shell are that the Prescribed Authority has not recorded any finding that the election dated 8. 7. 2007 was not held from the valid members and further exceeded in his jurisdiction while deciding the membership of society. It is further submitted that the orders dated 11. 4. 2007 and 16. 6. 2007 have become final but the same has not been considered by the Prescribed Authority. 7. 2007 was not held from the valid members and further exceeded in his jurisdiction while deciding the membership of society. It is further submitted that the orders dated 11. 4. 2007 and 16. 6. 2007 have become final but the same has not been considered by the Prescribed Authority. It is also submitted that the Prescribed Authority has no power or authority to interfere in the election of society, which was held under Section 25 (2) of Societies Registration Act on the complaint made by single member, therefore, the entire order is wholly erroneous, misconceived and without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. 17. Contrary to it, Sri RN. Saxena, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 has tried to justify the impugned order dated 27. 10. 2008 passed by the Prescribed Authority in exercise of powers under Section 25 (1) of Societies Registration Act, 1860. Before making submission on merits Sri Saxena has raised preliminary objection about the maintainability of writ petition. He submitted that by impugned order the Prescribed Authority has decided the dispute of members of general body of society and directed to hold fresh election on the basis of valid members of society. The nature of dispute raised in the writ petition involves factual question which requires appreciation on the basis of material evidence on record. Therefore, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India this Court cannot go into factual dispute and take different view in the matter than that of taken by the Prescribed Authority on the question of validity of members of general body of society, which constitutes electoral college for holding election of governing body of society, therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone and for adjudication of the question in controversy involved in the case the only course open to the petitioners is to take re-course of civil suit before competent Court having jurisdiction to decide such civil suit. The submissions of Sri P. M. Saxena, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 appears to have substance and deserves to be accepted. 18. However, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the orders dated 11. 4. 2007 and 16. 6. 2007 have become final and no finding has been recorded by the Prescribed Authority to the effect that the election dated 8. 7. 18. However, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the orders dated 11. 4. 2007 and 16. 6. 2007 have become final and no finding has been recorded by the Prescribed Authority to the effect that the election dated 8. 7. 2007 was not held from amongst valid members of the society, appears to be misconceived in the wake of facts that the election of office bearers of the society held in the year 1995 was only undisputed and based on undisputed valid members of the society and the elections held subsequently thereafter were disputed by one or other groups on one ground or the other, as revealed from the records and pleadings of the parties. In fact, the order dated 11. 4. 2007 passed by the Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, U. P. , Lucknow was challenged by the respondent No. 5 by filing a writ petition before this Court, which was dismissed on the ground that the election is going on and in case the respondent No. 5 is aggrieved, he may challenge the same after the result of election is declared. After dismissal of aforesaid writ petition, the result of election was declared and the respondent No. 5 has challenged the aforesaid result in Writ Petition No. 11926 of 2007, wherein this Court was of the view that in earlier writ petition it was held that the petitioner of said writ petition can challenge election after availing all statutory remedies available to him and the writ petition was not treated as statutory remedy. It was also observed that the dispute can be raised before the Prescribed Authority either by 1/4 members of General Body of society or it can be adjudicated upon by the Prescribed Authority on a reference made to him. 19. Thereafter the aforesaid dispute of membership of general body of society was referred by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Varanasi, vide order dated 20. 3. 2008 before the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of 1860 Act, who has finalized the list of members of general body of society by affording opportunity of hearing to the rival claimants and directed for holding fresh election vide impugned order dated 27. 10. 2008. Therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the orders dated 11. 4. 2007 and 16. 6. 10. 2008. Therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the orders dated 11. 4. 2007 and 16. 6. 2007 whereby the list of members was finalized and the election programme was published attained finality between the parties, is without any factual and legal basis and cannot be accepted to be correct in the wake of facts and events narrated hereinbefore in the counter affidavit. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, further submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the Prescribed Authority did not held that the election dated 8. 7. 2007 was held on the basis of invalid membership, appears to be wholly misconceived particularly when the Prescribed Authority has, in fact, found that the earlier election dated 8. 7. 2007 was held on the basis of fake members of general body of society. 20. Another submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent No. 5 could not raised objection before the Prescribed Authority unless the objection was signed by 1/4 members of society, also appears to be misconceived for the simple reason that aforesaid condition is precedent and essential only in a situation where the dispute under Section 25 (1) of Societies Registration Act sought to be referred before the Prescribed Authority straight way by the members of the society themselves without any assistance of the Registrar, Societies, but such condition is not essential where the dispute under Section 25 (1) of the 1860 Act is referred by Registrar or Assistant Registrar, Societies. Since the dispute under Section 25 (1) of the Act was referred by the Assistant Registrar, Societies, Varanasi vide order dated 20. 3. 2008, as revealed from Annexure-10 page 69-71 of the writ petition, therefore, no fault can be found in the reference so made by the Assistant Registrar at the instance of respondent No. 5 and when a dispute is referred before the Prescribed Authority, there was no illegality in deciding such dispute on the basis of evidence adduced by the respondent No. 5. 21. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not substantiate his arguments that once the election of office bearers of the society is held under the provisions of Section 25 (2) of the 1860 Act, the dispute of such election cannot be referred and be decided by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the 1860 Act, therefore, I am not inclined to deal with such argument. 22. In given facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that since the writ petition involves factual dispute of membership of general body of society, therefore, this Court cannot take different view than that of taken by the Prescribed Authority by appreciating any evidence and material on record as a Court of first instance. In case, the petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Prescribed Authority, they can approach civil Court by filing a suit. 23. In given facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered opinion, the writ petition is without any merit and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the same is hereby dismissed. 24. The interim order passed in the writ petition stands vacated. .