Hon’ble V.K.Shukla,J.—In the present case petitioners claiming themselves to be Committee of Management of Madarsa Arbia Darool Kuran Dostpura Kopaganj, Mau have approved this Court questioning the validity of the order dated 13.01.2011 accepting the list of office bearers and members submitted by Ubaid Ullah, respondent no. 4. 2. Brief background of the case as has been mentioned in the writ petition is that there is a society known as Madarsa Arbia Darool Kuran Dostpura Kopaganj, Mau which was got registered on 22.09.1992. The last renewal of the registration of the aforesaid society was done on 22.09.2007 for a period of five years. The aforesaid renewal was got done upon an application moved by the petitioner in the capacity of Manager. It has further been mentioned that previous election of the Committee of Management of the the society was held on 01.07.2006. In the aforesaid election Fayyaz Ahmad was elected as the President and petitioner no. 2 was elected as the Manager. The term of the Committee of Management of the society as per its by laws is five years. Petitioners further claim that a dispute arose in the Committee of Management of the society in the month of April 2010 when in respect of appointment to be made in the institution concerned there was conflict inter se Manager and President of the society and both of them fell apart. Petitioners claim that President and other members were acting detrimental of the affairs of the society and the institution in question, a meeting of the general body was convened on 23.05.2010 for considering their conduct. Petitioner has further stated that a meeting of the general body was held on 23rd May, 2010 which was attended by 58 out of 74 total members of the society. In the aforesaid meeting it was resolved that the entire committee of management may be dissolved as majority of them were acting against the interest of the society and some of them were continuously absent from the meetings of the committee of management of the society. It was further decided that till the new elections are held the petitioner no. 2 would officiate as Manager and would see to it that fresh elections are held. Petitioner further claims that in order to get the election of the committee of management held another meeting of the general body was convened on 3.6.2010. It was further decided that till the new elections are held the petitioner no. 2 would officiate as Manager and would see to it that fresh elections are held. Petitioner further claims that in order to get the election of the committee of management held another meeting of the general body was convened on 3.6.2010. In the said meeting it was decided that Committee of Management may be elected for the remaining term. Petitioner further claims that the members of the general body were of the opinion that election ought not to have been held in the month of July and it ought to have been held in the month of January alone as was being done in the past. It was, therefore, decided that the election to be held in June 2010, be only for a period till January 2011 and in the month of January 2011 fresh elections be held for a term of 5 years. Petitioner further claims that in the aforesaid election Maulana Sana Ullah Sahib was elected as President whereas the petitioner no. 2 was elected as the Manager. The petitioner filed a true copy of list of office bearers for the year 2010-11 before the assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits. Petitioners further claims that the contesting respondent no. 4 Shri Ubaid Ullah also moved an application before the Assistant Registrar on 11.6.2010 setting up a claim that he had been elected as Manager of the Committee of Management on 10.6.2010. It was his case that on 10.6.2010 in a meeting of the general body, the petitioner no. 2 was removed from the post of Manager by means of a no confidence motion in his place it is he who was elected as Manager for the remaining term. Based upon the aforesaid facts he moved the aforesaid application on 11.6.2010 together with the list of office bearers for being registered under section 4(1) of the Societies Registration Act. Petitioner further claims that faced with the aforesaid situation notices were issued by the Assistant Registrar on 15.6.2010 asking both the parties to submit their respective claims together with the material to support their claims. Petitioner further claims that the petitioner also informed the Assistant Registrar during the course of hearing that fresh election of the Committee of Management was held on 3.1.2011 in which Maulana Sana Ullah was re-elected as President and the petitioner no. Petitioner further claims that the petitioner also informed the Assistant Registrar during the course of hearing that fresh election of the Committee of Management was held on 3.1.2011 in which Maulana Sana Ullah was re-elected as President and the petitioner no. 2 was re-elected as Manager. Petitioner further claims that on the other hand Shri Ubai Ullah, respondent no. 4, also filed his representation before the Assistant Registrar along with which he submitted proceedings of 10.6.2010 and 11.6.2010. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh, thereafter proceeded to decide the matter. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed. 3. Sri G.K.Singh, Advocate, appearing with Anshu Chaudhary, Advocate contended with vehemence that in the present case Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh has totally transgressed and over stepping its jurisdiction by deciding election dispute and while deciding dispute of continuance of office bearers as such this is glaring case of transgression and overstepping of jurisdiction as such writ petition as it has been framed and drawn deserves to be allowed. 4. Countering the said submission Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate appearing with Sri Anil Kumar Pandey, Advocate contended that rightful view has been taken by Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh by accepting claim of respondent no. 4 and as such no interference should be made. 5. Stand to the similar effect has been taken by learned Standing counsel. 6. In order to appreciate the respective arguments relevant Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 are being looked into: “Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act- Disputes regarding election of office-bearers:- The prescribed authority may, on a reference made to it by the Registrar or by at least one fourth of the members of a society registered in Uttar Pradesh, hear and decide in a summary manner any doubt or dispute in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office bearer of such society, and may pass such orders in respect thereof as it deems fit. Provided that the election of an office bearer shall be set aside where the prescribed authority is satisfied. Provided that the election of an office bearer shall be set aside where the prescribed authority is satisfied. (a) that any corrupt practice has been committed by such office bearer; or (b) that the nomination of any candidate has been improperly rejected; or (c) that the result of the election in so far it concerns such office bearer has been materially affected by the improper acceptance of any nomination or by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void or by any non compliance with the provisions of any rules of the society. Explanation I-A person shall be deemed to have committed a corrupt practice who, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person- (i) induces, or attempts to induce, by fraud, intentional misrepresentation, coercion or threat or injury, any elector, to give or to refrain from giving a vote in favour of any candidate, or any person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw or not to withdraw from being a candidate the election. (ii) With a view to inducing any elector to give or to refrain from giving a vote in favour of any candidate, or to inducing any person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw or not to withdraw from being , a candidate at the election, offers or gives any money, or valuable consideration, or any place or employment, or holds out any promise of individual advantage or profit to any person; (iii) Abets (within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code) the doing of any of the Acts specified in Clauses (i) and (ii) (iv) Induces or attempts to induce a candidate or elector to believe that he, or any person in who he is interested, will become or will be rendered an object of divine displeasure or spiritual censure; (v) Canvases on grounds of caste , community, sect or religion; (vi) Commits such other practice as the State Government may prescribe to be a corrupt practice. Explanation II- A ‘promise of individual advantage or profit to a person’ includes a promise for the benefit of the person himself, or of any one in whom he is interested Explanation III. Explanation II- A ‘promise of individual advantage or profit to a person’ includes a promise for the benefit of the person himself, or of any one in whom he is interested Explanation III. The State Government may prescribe the p0rocedure for hearing and decision of doubts or disputes in respect of such elections and make provision in respect of any other matter relating to such elections for which insufficient provision exists in this Act or in the rules of the society. “ 7. On the parameter as set out the facts of the present case as are reflected that President and Manager of the Committee of Management had been fallen apart and both the respective groups had been claiming that proceedings held by them are the valid proceeding. Group headed by petitioner no. 2 had been claiming that meeting of general body of the society has been convened wherein entire Managing Committee of the institution was dissolved and then committee as stop gap arrangement was installed and subsequent to the same committee was re-elected in the election held. From the side of other group i.e the President’s group also claimed that Committee of Management has been superseded and therein also election has been held which was inclusive of removal of the Manager. Once before Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh dispute as to who were the lawfully elected officer bearer of the Committee of Management and as to whose elections have been held as per the bye laws of the society and as to whether no confidence motion has rightfully taken place then facts of the present case clearly warranted that the said dispute ought to have been referred to the Prescribed Authority in stead of Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh himself proceeding to decide the matter as has been done in the present case. In such a situation and in this background as dispute has been before Assistant Registrar in respect of election and continuance of the officer bearers, such dispute has to be decided by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. 8. Consequently, order dated 13.01.2011 passed by Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh is hereby quashed and set aside. 8. Consequently, order dated 13.01.2011 passed by Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh is hereby quashed and set aside. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh is directed to refer the matter before the Prescribed Authority within four weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of the order passed by this Court and thereafter Prescribed Authority is directed to decide the such dispute preferably within next six months after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. 9. With the above direction present writ petition is allowed. (Petition allowed) _____________