JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—The petitioners have sought the quashing of the order dated 13th May, 2009 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Jhansi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Deputy Registrar’) by which he has observed that the list of office bearers of the governing body of the Society earlier registered on 24th March, 2009 is correct. 2. It is stated that “The Field Council of Norwegian Evangelical Mission, Karwi, District Chitrakoot” (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Society’) is a Society registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The registered office of Society is situated at Karwi, District Banda. It has a Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations. The Assistant Registrar registered the list of office bearers of the Society for the year 2005-06 in which Ms. Aase Jorgensen was the Chairman/Treasurer. On 1st September, 2006, she brought an agenda that due to her poor health and weak eyesight she will not be able to perform her duties as Chairman/Treasurer and consequently in the general meeting of the Society on 30th September, 2006, a resolution was passed appointing petitioner No. 2-David S.K. Jai as the Chairman/Treasurer and Asher Wahab as Secretary. It is stated that thereafter the notice for annual general meeting, list of governing body and audited accounts along with form FC-3 for the year 2006-07 and 2007-08 were submitted to the Assistant Registrar on 30th July, 2007 and 27th July, 2008 by David S.K. Jai as Chairman/Treasurer. However, for the year 2008-09, the list of office bearers was submitted before the Deputy Registrar with Ms. Anna Marie Gorthe as Chairman/Treasurer and Asher Wahab as the Secretary on the basis of the proceedings held on 19th February, 2009. Subsequently, the Deputy Registrar, by the order dated 24th March, 2009 registered the list of office bearers of the Society for the year 2008-09. The petitioners filed objections against the said registration of the list of office bearers. These objections have been rejected by the order dated 13th May, 2009 which has been impugned in the present petition. 3. A perusal of the order shows that following reasons have been given by the Deputy Registrar in the impugned order : 1. The petitioners filed objections against the said registration of the list of office bearers. These objections have been rejected by the order dated 13th May, 2009 which has been impugned in the present petition. 3. A perusal of the order shows that following reasons have been given by the Deputy Registrar in the impugned order : 1. Clause 3 of the Rules and Regulations shows that the Superintendent of N.E. Mission shall be the ex-officio member and shall be the Chairman of the Association and the Governing Body. 2. Under Clause 15 of the Rules and Regulations, the Treasurer/Mission Superintendent shall be appointed by the Board of Foreign Mission, N.E.M. David S.K. Jai claims to be the Superintendent but he has not filed original documents to show that he had been appointed as Superintendent. 3. The erstwhile elected Chairman Ms. Aase Jorgensen expressed her inability to continue because of her old age. Subsequently, the Vice-Chairman namely Ms. Anna Marie Gorthe started discharging the duties of Chairman and the resolution of the Committee of Management of the Society dated 19th February, 2009 is in accordance with law. 4. On the other hand, David S.K. Jai has submitted proceedings of the meeting dated 27th July, 2008 which is said to have been presided by Vice Chairman Ms. Anna Marie Gorthe but she noted her disagreement. 5. The papers submitted by David S.K. Jai show that R.K. Gupta and K.P. Yadav were also present in the meeting but these persons could not be members as according to Clause 1 of the Rules and Regulations, only Christians could be the members of the Society. 6. Clause 17 of the Rules and Regulations provides that the Secretary shall send the papers to the Registrar of the Societies within 14 days of the annual general meeting each year, but in the present case David S.K. Jai has sent the papers as Chairman/Treasurer. 7. David S.K. Jai with his letter dated 27th July, 2008 has submitted papers along with the agenda of the meeting and the resolution dated 28th June, 2008 in which signatures of Ms. Anna Marie Gorthe differ from her original signatures. 8. 7. David S.K. Jai with his letter dated 27th July, 2008 has submitted papers along with the agenda of the meeting and the resolution dated 28th June, 2008 in which signatures of Ms. Anna Marie Gorthe differ from her original signatures. 8. The papers submitted by Asher Wahab on 7th March, 2009 for registering the list of office bearers of the Society for the year 2008-09 are in accordance with Section 4 of the Act and after mentioning objections the list of office bearers was registered. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when there was a dispute about membership and about the validity of the elections held by the rival parties, the Deputy Registrar should have referred the dispute to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act and should not have decided the dispute himself. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Registrar could decide the dispute about the validity of the members and the election and it is only when that the Deputy Registrar finds as a fact that the dispute is bona fide and genuine that he should refer the matter and not in every case. 6. A Division Bench of this Court in Committee of Management, Kisan Shiksha Sadan, Banksahi, District Basti and another (supra) observed that the Deputy Registrar can decide whether persons are valid members or not and the observations are as follows : “.............In 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 has to apply his mind to the facts of the case and take a decision. In taking such a decision, the Registrar will be quite justified to take into account all the relevant circumstances, as he has done in the present case. If an objection is raised about the membership of a person, in our view, it is the duty of the Registrar, for his own administrative purpose, to enquire into whether the person concerned is a member of the Society or not. If the Registrar comes to the conclusion that such a person is not a member of the Society then he is under no obligation to refer the dispute or doubt relating to his election to the Prescribed Authority for decision.................” 7. If the Registrar comes to the conclusion that such a person is not a member of the Society then he is under no obligation to refer the dispute or doubt relating to his election to the Prescribed Authority for decision.................” 7. In this connection 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 also needs to be referred wherein it has been held that Assistant Registrar can examine whether a person is a valid member of the Society or not. The Court in the aforesaid judgment after considering the provisions of the Act and various Division Bench judgments of this Court including Committee of Management, Kisan Shiksha Sadan 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 Section 3A 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) 8. In view of the law laid down in these decisions, it has to be held that the Deputy Registrar can examine whether the persons who have participated in the meeting are valid members or not. 9. The parties are thereafter free to approach Civil Court.” (emphasis supplied) 8. In view of the law laid down in these decisions, it has to be held that the Deputy Registrar can examine whether the persons who have participated in the meeting are valid members or not. 9. It is also no doubt true that when there is a dispute between two parties about the election of Committee of Management, the Assistant 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 Assistant 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. The 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. 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.” 10. In the present case, the Deputy Registrar has given cogent reasons for registering the list of office bearers. He has also recorded findings that in terms of the Rules and Regulations of the Society, the petitioners could not have held the elections at all and in any case they did not even submit the original documents to support their case. In the present case, the Deputy Registrar has given cogent reasons for registering the list of office bearers. He has also recorded findings that in terms of the Rules and Regulations of the Society, the petitioners could not have held the elections at all and in any case they did not even submit the original documents to support their case. It is, therefore, a case whether the dispute raised by the petitioners is not a bona fide and genuine dispute. The Deputy Registrar was, therefore, not obliged to refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority. 11. In any case, the petitioners, if they so desire, can approach the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein. 12. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed subject to the aforesaid observations. ————