JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner No. 1 Committee of Management Sri Manas Shiksha Prasar Samiti Itaili, Ratanpura Mau runs a Junior High School. The dispute relates to the Constitution of the Committee of Management. The last undisputed election was held on 10.12.2003 in which respondent No. 5 Ramadhar Singh was elected as Manager and one Sri Kalpnath Singh was elected as President. Ramadhar Singh, who was Manager at that time asserted that Sri Kulpnath Singh tendered his resignation due to bad health on 10.11.2005 which was accepted by General Body of the society on 14.12.2005 and Sri Shiv Nath Singh-respondent No. 6 was elected as President for the remaining period. The period of Committee of Management is three years. However, petitioner No. 2 Chandrama Singh asserted that fresh elections had taken place on 26.11.2005 and 16.12.2005. The dispute reached before the Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits Azamgarh, who passed a strange order on 27.10.2006 holding that the claim of both the parties was wrong and it was further held by the Assistant Registrar that period of Committee of Management was over. The said order was challenged through writ petition No. 62491 of 2006. The writ petition was allowed on 17.11.2006, copy of the judgment is Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The order dated 27.10.2006 was set aside and it was directed that : “Assistant Registrar may, However, pass fresh order with regard to the dispute which was placed before him regarding registration of list of members of the Committee of Management of the society”. 3. Through the above order technically the matter was not remanded only a liberty was granted for fresh decision. It is quite obvious that fresh decision could be taken only if any aggrieved party had approached the Assistant Registrar. Even if order dated 17.11.2006 (Annexure-5) is taken to the remand order still Assistant Registrar could re-hear the matter only if copy of the said judgment was filed before him. It appears that thereafter no party approached the Assistant Registrar for decision on the question of resignation of Kalpnath Singh and appointment of respondent No. 6 as president at his place for the remaining period. 4. It appears that thereafter no party approached the Assistant Registrar for decision on the question of resignation of Kalpnath Singh and appointment of respondent No. 6 as president at his place for the remaining period. 4. According to para 17 of the counter-affidavit filed by Sri Shiv Nath Singh-respondent No. 6 on his behalf and on behalf of respondent No. 5 Ramadhar Singh fresh elections were held on 10.12.2006, in which Ramadhar Singh-respondent No. 5 was elected as Manager. 5. However, Assistant Registrar passed an order on 9.2.2007 proposing to hold election from a tentative list of 11 members. Objections were invited to the list. Against the order dated 9.2.2007, writ petition (10651 of 2007) was filed in which initially an interim order was passed on 27.2.2007, however, on the same date the list had been finalized by the Assistant Registrar and 9 persons had been found to be valid members. The writ petition No. 10651 of 2007 was dismissed on 7.3.2008 on the ground of alternative remedy and Special Appeal filed against the same was also dismissed (para 23 and 24 of the counter-affidavit). Ultimately election was held by the Assistant Registrar on 1.4.2008 under Section 25(2) of Societies Registration Act, in which petitioner No. 2 Chandrama Singh was elected as Manager. Thereafter contesting respondent Nos. 5 and 6 approached the Prescribed Authority through application dated 7.1.2009 which was decided on 20.9.2010 by Deputy Collector, Sadar Mau/ Prescribed Authority, copy of the said order is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It is shown to have been passed in case No. 6/7/2010 Shiv Nath and others v. Assistant Registrar. 6. Through this writ petition order of the Prescribed Authority dated 20.9.2010 contained in Annexure-1 and consequent order of District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Mau dated 25.9.2010 (Annexure-II) have been challenged. 7. Apart from approaching the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of Societies Registration Act, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 also filed O.S. No. 1624 of 2009 which is pending before Civil Judge (Junior Division) Mau. After approaching the Prescribed Authority what was the need to file the suit has been disclosed in para 29 of the counter-affidavit which is quoted below : “That the petitioners have challenged the aforesaid order of the Prescribed Authority by means of the present writ petition mainly on the ground that the respondent No. 5 has availed two remedies simultaneously. After approaching the Prescribed Authority what was the need to file the suit has been disclosed in para 29 of the counter-affidavit which is quoted below : “That the petitioners have challenged the aforesaid order of the Prescribed Authority by means of the present writ petition mainly on the ground that the respondent No. 5 has availed two remedies simultaneously. As mentioned above, the Prescribed Authority was fully competent to decide the aforesaid dispute under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, therefore, the respondent No. 5 rightly approached the Prescribed Authority. However, since there is no power of stay with the Prescribed Authority, the respondent No. 5 was left with no other option but to file a Civil Suit. Hence it cannot be said that the action of the respondent No. 5 in approaching the Prescribed Authority and also filing the Civil Suit was illegal in any manner whatsoever.” 8. In my opinion, for the same relief and against the same orders two remedies cannot be pursued simultaneously; one under Section 25(1) of Societies Registration Act and the other by filing suit. Merely because Prescribed Authority has got no power to grant temporary injunction is no ground to institute both the proceedings simultaneously. If the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were very much interested in temporary injunction then they should have filed only the suit and not the proceeding before the Prescribed Authority. Suit can be filed even after decision of Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of Societies Registration Act. In the suit which has been filed no primary injunction has been granted. 9. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 20.9.2010 passed by Deputy Collector/ Prescribed Authority under Societies Registration Act and Consequent order dated 25.9.2010 passed by District Basic Adhikari, Mau are set aside only on the ground that after filing of the suit, Prescribed Authority ceased to have jurisdiction to decide the dispute. It is clarified that in this judgment merit of the dispute has not been touched. ——————