V.K. Shukla. J.;- In the present case, petitioner has rushed to this court for quashing of the order dated 11.8.2011 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms societies and Chits Allahabad Region Allahabad accepting the list of office bearers and members under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. 2. Brief background of the case is that there is society, at Kathara, Handia, district Allahabad, which is duly registered society under Societies Registration Act, 1860. The aforesaid society runs and manages an Educational Institution under the name of Shiv Inter College. The aforesaid institution is governed under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921 and the provisions of U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salary to the Teachers and others Employees ) Act, 1971 as well as the provisions of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 as amended upto date are applicable to the said institution. The aforesaid institution is to be run and managed in accordance with the provision as contained under duly approved Scheme of Administration applicable to the said institution and the Committee of Management of the institution is constituted as per the provision as contained under duly approved Scheme of Administration framed under Section 16-A of U.P. Act No.2 of 1921. The election of the society running the institution is held in accordance with the provision as contained under registered by-laws of the society and the last renewal of the aforesaid society was done on 10.10.2005 for the period of five years which was valid upto 9.10.2010. Petitioner claims that elections have been held on 6.10.2007 and 26.9.2010 wherein he was elected as Secretary alongwith other office bearers and member and in this background submitted that he requested the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Allahabad for according renewal of the registration of the society. Petitioner has stated that Shrda Prasad Singh also submitted election of the same date on 7.10.2011 before the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Allahabad. Petitioner has stated that thereafter, order impugned has been passed. 3. Sri. Irshad Ali, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case dispute in question was in reference to the election and as such Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Allahabad ought to have referred the matter to the Prescribed Authority and as such order is bad. 4. 3. Sri. Irshad Ali, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case dispute in question was in reference to the election and as such Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Allahabad ought to have referred the matter to the Prescribed Authority and as such order is bad. 4. Countering the said submission, learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri P.N. Saxena, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri S.K. Srivastava, Advocate on the other hand contended that entire claim of the petitioner on the face of it is fake and ingenuine and in such a situation once categorical finding of fact has been returned on this score, then this court should refuse to exercise its authority of judicial review as any interference with the same would amount to perpetuation of illegality. 5. After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position, which has so emerged in the present case that out going Managing Committee was headed by Dr. Ghanshyam Singh as President and Sharda Prasad Singh as Secretary and as per provision as contained in by-laws it was out going Managing Committee the society entitled to convene a meeting and hold election. In the present case precise question has been put to the petitioners' counsel as to under which authority of law, petitioner has proceeded to get election held and shown to have been got himself elected in the election. To the specific query raised on this score there is no reply and reason is obvious that under by-laws of the society it is out going Managing Committee of the society through its Secretary has right to convene a meeting and hold election. In the present case incumbent, who have been shown by the petitioners to have been elected in the election set up by him have disowned their participation and also disowned their signature. Once such is the factual situation that entire claim of the petitioners have been found to be fake and ingenuine and petitioner No.2 has failed to substantiate that he is valid member, then contention of the petitioner that matter ought to have been referred to the Prescribed Authority, cannot be accepted, inasmuch as Deputy Registrar Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits has no doubt in his mind that papers have been fabricated only for the purposes of the case. 6. 6. Petitioners have place heavy reliance on the case of Gram Shiksha Sudhar Samiti Junior High School Sikandra District Manpur Dehat and another Vs. Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, U.P. Lucknow and others reported in 2010 (3) UPLBEC 2522, that in the facts of the case matter ought to have been referred to Prescribed Authority in stead of Deputy Registrar Firms Societies and Chits, Kanpur Nagar Region Kanpur himself deciding the matter. 7. In the facts of the case ratio of the aforesaid judgment will not come to the rescue of the petitioner for the simple reason that Assistant Registrar Firms Societies and Chits, Allahabad has found that petitioner has no right whatsoever to convene the meeting and to hold the election and entire documents have been found to be fake and ingenuine. Dispute which is to be referred to the Prescribed Authority has to be genuine dispute and not fake and fanciful dispute. 8. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rashtriya Junior High School Babhinao Vs. Assistant Registrar AIR 2006 All 186 has clearly taken the view that only genuine existence of dispute might give rise of reference to Prescribed Authority through Registrar and incumbent who claims reference has to support his claim of rival body with sufficient clarity. Petitioners have miserably failed on this score. 9. This Court in the case of Sri Babu Ram Shiksha Prasar Samiti Vs. Deputy Registrar 2007 (9) ADJ 262 , has taken the view that renewal and registration of list of office bearers and members is the exclusive domain of Registrar and ingenuine dispute is not be referred. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Committee of Management Adarsh Krishak Junior High School Vs. State of U.P. 2009(9) ADJ 270 has taken the view that Registrar while exercising authority under Section 4 A of the Act or granting renewal to the society does not act as a mere post office, and he is not duty bound to refer any and every dispute to Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Act. Only a bonafide and genuine dispute could be subject matter of reference and not otherwise. View to the similar effect has again been reiterated in the case reported in 2010 (4) ADJ, the Field Council of Norwegain Evanegical Mission Vs. Only a bonafide and genuine dispute could be subject matter of reference and not otherwise. View to the similar effect has again been reiterated in the case reported in 2010 (4) ADJ, the Field Council of Norwegain Evanegical Mission Vs. State of U.P. In the facts of case on the parameters noted above, reference was not at all required. 10. Consequently in genuine fake dispute are not to be referred as matter of course and Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Allahabad is not to act as post office and in such a situation, if on inquiry it has been found that entire claim of the petitioner is based on fictitious document and he is not even primary member of general body then this court in exercise of authority of judicial review in equitable jurisdiction will not extend any relief or reprieve to the petitioner as same would result in perpetuating illegality. 11. With these observations, writ petition is dismissed.