JUDGMENT By the Court.—The appellants herein had approached the Registrar under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for taking on record the names of the office bearers of the Society. 2. According to the appellants, they were duly elected office bearers pursuant to the elections, which were held. The Act has been amended, whereby a proviso has been inserted pursuant to U.P. Act No. 11 of 1984, which came into effect from 30.4.1984. The said proviso reads as under : “4. ......................... Provided that if the managing body is elected after the last submission of the list, the counter signature of the old members, shall, as far as possible, be obtained on the list. If the old office-bearers do not counter-sign the list, the Registrar may, in his discretion, issue a public notice or notice to such persons as he thinks fit inviting objections within a specified period and shall decide all objections received within the said period.” There is another amendment in the Act by inserting Section 25 by the very same amendment, which also came into force with effect from 30.4.1984. Section 25 (1) of the Act reads as under : “25. Dispute regarding election of office-bearers.- (1) The prescribed authority may, on a reference made to it by the Registrar or by at least one-fourth of the members of a society registered in Uttar Pradesh, hear and decide in a summary manner any doubt or dispute in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office-bearers of such society, and may pass such orders in respect thereof as it deems fit: Provided that the election of an office-bearer shall be set aside where the prescribed authority is satisfied- (a) that any corrupt practice has been committed by such office-bearers; or (b) that the nomination of any candidate has been improperly rejected; or (c) that the result of the election in so far as it concerns such office-bearers has been materially affected by the improper acceptance of any nomination or by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void or by any non-compliance with the provisions of any rules of the society.” 3. On an application made by the appellants, the Registrar considering the proviso to Section 4 of the Act issued notice, amongst others, to present respondent No. 3, who filed an objection on various grounds disputing the claim made by the appellants herein that they were duly elected office bearers. The Registrar enquired into the claim and held that the list submitted by the appellants could not be accepted, as he found that the elections were fake. The Registrar also recorded a finding that respondent No. 3 was the duly elected President of the Committee. 4. Being aggrieved by this order, the writ petition was preferred before the learned Single Judge who, by order dated 5th of July, 2010 refused to exercise his extra-ordinary jurisdiction on the ground that the appellants had an alternative remedy under Section 25 (1) of the Act and consequently, dismissed the writ petition. The present appeal is directed against the said order. 5. At the hearing of this appeal, on behalf of the appellants, Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel, submits that the matter touching the elections of Society can only be enquired into under Section 25 (1) of the Act and the Registrar has no jurisdiction under the proviso to Section 4 of the Act, to decide the said controversy. Learned counsel has relied on a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in All India Council and another v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi Region, Varanasi and another, AIR 1988 Alld. 236. 6. On the other hand, on behalf of respondent No. 3, learned counsel submits that no election could have been held as claimed by the appellants. There was sufficient material on record, which was placed before the Registrar and considering the proviso to Section 4 of the Act, the Registrar could have considered and gone into this aspect and as such the learned Single Judge considering Section 25 (1) of the Act was right in refusing to exercise his discretion under the extra-ordinary jurisdiction. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the first question that we have to answer is as to whether the Registrar under the proviso to Section 4 of the Act, as amended in the State of Uttar Pradesh, could have proceeded to decide the controversy pertaining to the election of office bearers. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the first question that we have to answer is as to whether the Registrar under the proviso to Section 4 of the Act, as amended in the State of Uttar Pradesh, could have proceeded to decide the controversy pertaining to the election of office bearers. In our opinion, the issue is no longer res integra having been decided by the Division Bench in All India Council (supra). We may gainfully refer to paragraph 7 of this judgment, which reads as under : “7. It will, therefore, be seen that insofar as disputes or doubts in respect of the election or continuance in office of the office-bearers of a society registered in Uttar Pradesh are concerned, the Legislature has created a specific forum and laid down an exhaustive procedure for determination of the same under S.25. There is no other provision, express or otherwise, providing for determination of such disputes specifically. It is settled law that where, as here, the Legislature creates a specific forum and lays an exhaustive procedure for determination of a particular class of disputes in respect of matters covered by the stature, such disputes can be determined only in that forum and in the manner prescribed thereunder and not otherwise. If, therefore, a dispute is raised with regard to the election or continuance in office of an office-bearer of a society registered in Uttar Pradesh, the same has to be decided only by the Prescribed Authority under S. 25 (1) and not by the Registrar, save, of course, to the decision of the Prescribed Authority being subject to the result of a civil suit.” 8. Considering the ratio of this judgment, it would be clear that the learned Division Bench has harmonised both the provisions so that both can be given effect to. The effect is that what can be gone into under Section 25 of the Act, cannot be gone into under the proviso to Section 4 of the Act. This, in our opinion, would be the proper reading of both the provisions without rendering any provision otiose. 9. The effect is that what can be gone into under Section 25 of the Act, cannot be gone into under the proviso to Section 4 of the Act. This, in our opinion, would be the proper reading of both the provisions without rendering any provision otiose. 9. In view of the above, though the direction of the learned Single Judge would be an appropriate direction, nonetheless the learned Single Judge ought to have, at the same time, set aside the order dated 11th June, 2010, as that would be an order without jurisdiction. The moment an application for taking on record the names of the office bearers and an objection as to the validity or otherwise of the office bearers, who are duly elected, have been filed, the Registrar considering Section 25 (1) of the Act ought to have referred the matter to the Prescribed Authority under the said provision. 10. The assumption of jurisdiction by the Registrar, therefore, is without jurisdiction and that order dated 11.6.2010 is liable to be set aside, and is accordingly, set aside. 11. The Registrar is directed to refer the objections alongwith the application filed by the appellants herein to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Act for a decision in accordance with law. 12. The appeal is disposed of, accordingly. No order as to costs. —————