By The Court—Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The dispute relates to the membership and the elections for constituting the Committee of Management of the society in question. By resolution dated 24.9.2010, four members namely Izhar Ahmad, Sarvare Alam Hussain and Atahar Jamal were elected to the Committee as four members of the Committee had died. Subsequently in the General Body Meeting dated 6.10.2010, eight members were enrolled which include four members elected to the Committee on 24.9.2010. On 12.10.2010 elections were held for electing the Office Bearers to the Committee of Management of the society. It would be relevant to note here that the Committee of Management of the society as also the Committee of Management of the institution is one and the same. The papers were forwarded to both the Authorities namely the Deputy Registrar as also the District Inspector of Schools for appropriate approval and registration. The District Inspector of Schools after requiring certain documents from the Committee, recommended to the Regional Committee and the Regional Committee by order dated 7.2.2011 approved the elections dated 12.10.2010. Subsequently the District Inspector of Schools by order dated 28.2.2011 attested the signatures of the Manager. 3. In the meantime it appears that certain complaints were made to the Assistant Registrar with regard to the elections held on 12.10.2010. The dispute raised was with regard to the election of four members on 24.9.2010, enrollment of eight members on 6.10.2010 as also with regard to the validity of the elections held on 12.10.2010. Certain affidavits were filed by the members that they had not been given any notice with regard to the meetings dated 24.9.2010 and 12.10.2010. The Assistant Registrar by order dated 4.4.2011 impugned in the writ petition set aside the resolutions passed in the meetings dated 24.9.2010, 6.10.2010 and 12.10.2010 and directed the District Inspector of Schools, Siddharthnagar to get fresh elections conducted on the basis of the list of forty-nine members attached to the said order. The Assistant Registrar by order dated 4.4.2011 impugned in the writ petition set aside the resolutions passed in the meetings dated 24.9.2010, 6.10.2010 and 12.10.2010 and directed the District Inspector of Schools, Siddharthnagar to get fresh elections conducted on the basis of the list of forty-nine members attached to the said order. The order dated 4.4.2011 is said to have been passed in purported exercise of powers under Section 25 (2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as applicable in the State of U.P. The appellant filed writ petition against the said order being Writ Petition No.23446 of 2011, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 22.4.2011 for the reason that certain fraud had been practised by inducting members on the eve of the elections. 4. The present appeal has been filed assailing the correctness of the order dated 22.4.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge. 5. The submission advanced on behalf of the appellant is that once a dispute with regard to the membership and the elections had been raised before the Assistant Registrar, he was obliged under law to refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Act. The Assistant Registrar had no jurisdiction to examine the validity of the membership or the elections and thereafter pass an order for holding fresh elections under Section 25 (2) of the Act. Thus the order of the Assistant Registrar dated 4.4.2011 passed under Section 25 (2) of the Act providing for fresh elections was not sustainable in law and liable to be quashed. Reliance has been placed upon the relevant provisions of Section 25 of the Act as also a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Gram Shiksha Sudhar Samiti, Junior High School, Sikandra & Anr. v. Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, U.P. Lucknow & Ors., [2010 (5) ALJ 41 : AIR 2010 (NOC) 1110 (ALL)], wherein this Court had held upon a objection being filed with regard to the validity of the members of the Office Bearers to avail the course open to the Assistant Registrar to make a reference under Section 25 (1) of the Act. 6. 6. On the other hand the counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Assistant Registrar is not a post office and every application or objection disputing the membership or an election, need not necessarily be referred to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Act. The Assistant Registrar only upon being prima facie satisfied that a bonafide dispute exists, would refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Act. According to Sri P.N. Saxena, learned counsel for the respondents in the present case the Assistant Registrar has recorded a specific finding that the enrollment of the members was tainted by fraud and such members having been allowed to participate in the elections, the membership as also the elections have rightly been set aside by the Assistant Registrar. Further as the term had expired the directions for fresh elections were duly justified. Sri Saxena has relied upon the judgments in the cases of Committee of Management, Kisan Shiksha Sadan, Banksahi, District Basti and another v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur and another, [(1995) 2 UPLBEC 1242] and 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] in support of his arguments. 7. Having considered the submissions, in our opinion the Assistant Registrar exceeded his jurisdiction in setting aside the resolutions whereby members had been enrolled and elections had been held and directing for fresh elections under Section 25 (2) of the Act. The objection filed before the Assistant Registrar by the respondent no.3 was to the effect that the meetings for enrolling the members and for the elections had not been validly convened. Due notice to the members had not been given. Some affidavits had also been filed by the members in support of the said complaints. On the other hand the appellant had tried to establish that the meetings had been validly convened, further that the Educational Authorities had approved the elections and the signatures of the elected Manager had also been attested, as such the Assistant Registrar also ought to have approved the elections of the society. In our opinion the dispute was bonafide and required to be considered by the Prescribed Authority who could examine the matter based upon evidence. In our opinion the dispute was bonafide and required to be considered by the Prescribed Authority who could examine the matter based upon evidence. The appropriate course open to the Assistant Registrar was to refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Act. Our view stands strengthened by the judgment of this Court in the case of Gram Shiksha Sudhar Samiti, Junior High School, Sikandra & Anr. (supra). The two decisions relied upon by Sri P.N. Saxena, learned counsel for the respondents are clearly distinguishable on facts and as such of no help. 8. In view of above, we set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.4.2011 and allow the writ petition and quash the order of the Assistant Registrar dated 4.4.2011. The Assistant Registrar is directed to refer the objection to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Act for decision in accordance with law. 9. The appeal stands allowed as above. _____________