F.I. Rebello, CJ. and A.P. Sahi, J. - This appeal arises out of a judgment of the learned Single Judge in relation to a dispute of a society registered under the Societies Registration Act known as 'Gramopyogi Shiksha Pracharini Samiti, Bakarganj, Goraju, Kaushambi. The challenge in the writ petition was to the order dated 20th March, 2010 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits Allahabad who proceeded to register the list of office bearers and the members of the committee of management under section 4 (1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 submitted by the contesting respondents No. 4 and 5. The said list of office bearers are alleged to have been elected in the elections held on 14.9.2008. 2. The undisputed position is that the elections were previously held in the year 2001 and since the term of the said elections expired, a meeting is stated to have been convened on 10th April, 2004 for holding of fresh elections on 6th June, 2004. One Mr. Durga Prasad Singh was appointed as the Election Officer. The contesting respondents allege that 76 members had been newly en­rolled. This position was resisted by the appellants and Durga Prasad Singh the Election Officer passed an order on 6.6.2004 staying the elections till the dispute of the aforesaid 76 members was decided. Consequently no elections were held and the matter remained pending. 3. The society also manages educational institutions including Dilip Singh Inter College Bakarganj, District Kaushambi. According to the scheme of administration of the said institution as alleged by the appellants, the same electoral college of the parent society also holds the elections of the committee of management of the institution. The elections of the committee were also be­ing delayed and on a direction of the High Court in a writ petition filed, the Joint Director of Education finalized the electoral college vide order dated 23.1.2008 holding that the 328 members of the parent society were entitled to participate in the elections. 4. The appellants contend that the said 328 members are the valid mem­bers with whom the elections have to be held and the 76 members stated to have been allegedly inducted were not entitled to participate in the elections. 4. The appellants contend that the said 328 members are the valid mem­bers with whom the elections have to be held and the 76 members stated to have been allegedly inducted were not entitled to participate in the elections. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that since the electoral college is the same therefore the elections of the parent society which is presently in dispute has to be held on the basis of the same electoral college. The appel­lants allege that the term of the committee of management elected in 2001 had expired long back and no fresh elections had been held therefore in such a situ­ation the Assistant Registrar was empowered to hold elections under sub-sec­tion 2 of section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. In view of the said provision the outgoing President of the society Smt. Urmila Devi made a re­quest on 8th February, 2008 to the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits Allahabad to get fresh elections held. 5. The Assistant Registrar vide order dated 12th February, 2008 called for a list of the electoral college from the Joint Director of Education who had fi­nalized the same vide his order dated 23.1.2008. The Joint Director of Education forwarded the said list to the Assistant Registrar on 22.2.2008. 6. It is alleged that some notice was published on 27.8.2008 for holding of the elections on 14.9.2008. A complaint was made by Suryabali Singh re­spondent on 28.8.2008 against the holding of such elections on the ground that no such meeting was convened for holding of elections. It is also alleged that one Madan Singh who is a Lekhpal of the same village and is also alleged to be a life member of the society was nominated to act as an Election Officer. It is on the strength of such a notice that the alleged elections is claimed to have been held by the respondent Awadhesh Singh on 14.9.2008 in which 6 members and 6 office bearers are stated to have been elected. 7. It is on the strength of such a notice that the alleged elections is claimed to have been held by the respondent Awadhesh Singh on 14.9.2008 in which 6 members and 6 office bearers are stated to have been elected. 7. A complaint was made by the appellants Surendra Singh on 24.9.2008 to the Assistant Registrar that the said list of office bearers stated to have been elected on 14.9.2008 could not be accepted inasmuch as the Assistant Registrar has not held the said elections, the elections are founded on an incor­rect electoral college, no meeting had been convened for holding of the said elections, no report of the elections having been actually held has been submit­ted by the Election Officer and there were no documents to support the same and finally the constitution of the committee which requires one patron six office bearers members and five members is not in accordance with the bye-laws. 8. The Assistant Registrar who had no jurisdiction to decide the matter according to the learned Counsel for the appellants was proceeding to decide the same on an undue influence exercised by the contesting respondents as such a complaint was made before the Registrar on 19.8.2009 that the Assistant Registrar be asked not to proceed with the matter and the file be summoned from him. The Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow accordingly summoned the file but instead of taking any action the file was re­turned to the Assistant Registrar on 7.12.2009. The Assistant Registrar there­after accordingly appears to have summoned the Election Officer for producing the documents who did not produce the same and without following the princi­ples of natural justice and without conducting any proper hearing the Assistant Registrar proceeded to pass the impugned order. Prior to this the appellants had filed a writ petition No. 11659 of 2010 apprehending that the Assistant Registrar might pass a mala fide order, which was dismissed on the ground that such objections can be raised before the Assistant Registrar himself. 9. The Assistant Registrar has proceeded to accept the list of office bear­ers and has recorded a finding that Madan Singh the Election Officer appears to have been won over by the appellants and has deliberately not produced the documents in relation to the conduct of the elections, therefore, the office bear­ers having been elected on 14.9.2008 were validly elected. 10. The Assistant Registrar has proceeded to accept the list of office bear­ers and has recorded a finding that Madan Singh the Election Officer appears to have been won over by the appellants and has deliberately not produced the documents in relation to the conduct of the elections, therefore, the office bear­ers having been elected on 14.9.2008 were validly elected. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellants Sri P.N. Saxena contends that the aforesaid procedure adopted by the Assistant Registrar was without jurisdic­tion as he had no authority to declare an election valid or invalid and even otherwise the order was in violation of principles of natural justice and also for the reasons stated hereinabove. 11. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the issues raised by the petitioner are factual in nature and therefore it can be determined by the prescribed authority under sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 which is an alternative remedy to be availed of by the appellants. The learned Single Judge observed that in case the matter is entertained by the prescribed authority the same shall be decided by hear­ing the parties within a period of three months. 12. Sri Saxena contends that the learned Single Judge once having arrived at the conclusion that the matter could have decided by the prescribed author­ity, the order of the Assistant Registrar ought to have been quashed. He sub­mits that the Assistant Registrar was bound to have referred the dispute as it was in relation to the election of the office bearers held on 14.9.2008. The va­lidity of the elections being directly involved, the matter ought to have been referred to the prescribed authority and the learned Single Judge erred in dis­missing the writ petition treating the said remedy to be an alternative remedy. In essence the submission is that the order of the Assistant Registrar deserves to be set aside whereafter the matter has to be decided by the prescribed author­ity under section 25 (1) of the Act. 13. Learned Counsel for the contesting respondents Sri P.S. Baghel submits that the Assistant Registrar was well within his jurisdiction to have regis­tered the list of office bearers keeping in view the proviso contained in section 4 of the Societies Registration Act as amended and applicable in the State of UP. 13. Learned Counsel for the contesting respondents Sri P.S. Baghel submits that the Assistant Registrar was well within his jurisdiction to have regis­tered the list of office bearers keeping in view the proviso contained in section 4 of the Societies Registration Act as amended and applicable in the State of UP. He submits that the Assistant Registrar was within his authority to invite ob­jections and thereafter register the list of office bearers which has been done in the instant case. He further submits that the Election Officer Madan Singh has colluded with the appellants and has not appeared before the Assistant Registrar which would not amount to lack of any evidence in support of the elections dated 14.9.2008. He further submits that the list of office bearers of the contesting respondents is a valid list and the contention raised on behalf of the appellants is without any substance. Learned Standing Counsel has also been heard for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. 14. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, the first issue which has to be determined was the validity of the meeting that had been convened for the purpose of holding of the elections dated 14.9.2008. The meeting ought to have been convened by the outgoing committee and it could not have been a decision by persons who are not entitled to proceed with the elections. The or­der of the Assistant Registrar does not reflect on this issue and even otherwise the same would be a matter of consideration by the prescribed authority while proceeding to consider any doubt or dispute with regard to the elections of office bearers. It is also on record that the elections which had been convened in the year 2004 were never held and there was an ongoing dispute with regard to the alleged induction of 76 new members. It is also on record that the Joint Director of Education had found 328 members entitled to participate in election which was a piece of evidence to be looked into before finalizing the electoral college. Apart from this if the elections of the committee of management of the society were not held within time then after such a finding is recorded by the pre­scribed authority, it is the Assistant Registrar who can proceed to hold the elections under sub-section 2 of section 25. Apart from this if the elections of the committee of management of the society were not held within time then after such a finding is recorded by the pre­scribed authority, it is the Assistant Registrar who can proceed to hold the elections under sub-section 2 of section 25. In the instant case the elections were not held after 2001. This issue was also relevant and which has been com­pletely overlooked by the Assistant Registrar while passing the impugned or­der dated 20.3.2010. 15. For all the aforesaid reasons the order of the Assistant Registrar dated 20.3.2010 is unsustainable in law. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge ought to have set aside the order of the Assistant Registrar and remitted the matter to the prescribed authority for decision in accordance with the rules and the provisions of section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The learned Single Judge therefore fell in error in relegating the appellants on the ground of availability of alternative remedy without setting aside the order of the Assistant Registrar who was bound to refer the dispute in view of the provi­sions referred to herein above. The moot question which was to be decided was the validity of the elections and its office bearers who were elected on 14.9.2008. This was essentially a dispute within the scope of section 25 (1) and the jurisdiction whereof lay in the hands of the Prescribed Authority and not the Assistant Registrar. Accordingly we set aside the order of the Assistant Registrar dated 20.3.2010 and the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 19.7.2010, and direct the Assistant Registrar to refer the dispute to the pre­scribed authority within 15 days of the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. The prescribed authority shall thereafter proceed to de­cide the dispute within three months thereafter. 16. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. Appeal Allowed.