JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—This petition questions the correctness of the order dated 23.10.2009 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Allahabad, proceeding to declare that the elections as set up are not valid and has directed for taking action under Sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act accordingly simultaneously calling upon the parties to submit their membership list to be finalised in terms of Section 15 of the 1860 Act. The contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order is without jurisdiction as the Assistant Registrar has proceeded to decide the dispute little realising that the same ought to have been referred to the Prescribed Authority under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the 1860 Act. It is urged that the order being without jurisdiction, the same deserves to be set aside. 2. I have heard Sri N.L. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Krishna Bihari and Sri Dinesh Kakkar for Respondent No. 3 as well as learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 3. Parties have exchanged Affidavits and they pray that the matter be finally disposed of at this stage. 4. The background of the dispute is that a list of office bearers for the year 2006-07 was submitted before the respondent - Assistant Registrar under the provisions of Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act. The Assistant Registrar registered the said list vide his order dated 13.10.2006. The petitioner also claims to have been elected as Manager of the College established by the Society and his signatures were attested by the District Inspector of Schools on 12.12.2006. The respondent No. 3 filed Writ Petition bearing No. 60862 of 2006 assailing the order of the Assistant Registrar. The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by the following order on 10.11.2006 : “Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that he may be permitted to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to pursue alternative remedy available under law. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner may pursue such other remedy which is available to him under law. Sd/- Hon. Vineet Saran, J Dt. 10.11.2006.” 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner may pursue such other remedy which is available to him under law. Sd/- Hon. Vineet Saran, J Dt. 10.11.2006.” 5. Sri Virendra Pratap Singh - the respondent No. 3 moved an application before the Assistant Registrar contending that the change of office-bearers which has been reflected before the Assistant Registrar on 20.7.2006 is a fabricated claim of the petitioner upon which the Assistant Registrar issued notices to which a reply was given by the petitioner. Objections and counter objections were made whereupon the respondent appears to have approached the Secretary to the Chief Minister, who issued a direction on 15.12.2006 calling upon the Assistant Registrar to hold an independent inquiry and do the needful in accordance with law. The Assistant Registrar appears to have proceeded thereafter and has passed the impugned order. It is in the aforesaid background that the entire dispute has arisen. 6. The respondents have filed a counter-affidavit and they allege that there is no bona fide or genuine dispute and the entire allegations of the petitioner on the strength of the resolution dated 20.7.2006 is frivolous inasmuch as neither any such meeting was held nor any valid member participated therein to pass a resolution. It is urged that neither any Agenda was circulated nor any meeting was convened and 3 posts of office-bearers namely Deputy Manager, Manager and Vice-President have been substituted in the absence of Respondent No. 3, who was admittedly the then Manager of the institution. In such a situation, the Assistant Registrar while registering the list of office-bearers was under an obligation to issue a notice and decide the claim in the light of the provisions of Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act. Even other wise on merits, the petitioner had failed to submit documents in support of the said claim and, therefore, the Assistant Registrar has committed no error in rejecting the stand of the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that since no valid elections were held after 10.8.2004 and the tenure being 3 years, the Assistant Registrar has rightly proceeded to take action under Sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Act. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that since no valid elections were held after 10.8.2004 and the tenure being 3 years, the Assistant Registrar has rightly proceeded to take action under Sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Act. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied on two judgments namely the decision in the case of Committee of Management, Baba Ram Sahai and another v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Azamgarh and others, 2009(9) ADJ 742 : 2009(5) ESC 3675 and the other decision in the case of Committee of Management, Shiksha Samiti, Gopalpur, Sikariganj, Gorakhpur and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (2) ADJ 156 , to contend that the proviso to Sub-clause (ii) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 4 authorises the Assistant Registrar to examine as to whether the dispute raised is a frivolous dispute or not and pass orders. The contention is that in the facts of the present case which are similar to the decision rendered in the aforesaid case, do not require any reference under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. It is urged that the Assistant Registrar was competent to examine the documents and deal with the matter in the light of the provisions referred to herein above. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this recourse was not open to the Assistant Registrar in view of the Division Bench judgment in the case of All India Council and another v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Varanasi Region, Varanasi, and another, AIR 1988 All 236 , which has been followed by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gram Shiksha Sudhar Samiti, Junior High Schools, Sikandra, District Kanpur Dehat, and another v. Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, U.P., Lucknow, and others, 2010 (7) ADJ 643 (DB). 10. Sri Dinesh Kakkar, replying to the aforesaid submissions on behalf of the petitioner, contends that if this position of law is accepted then in no case would the Assistant Registrar have the authority to decide objections under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act as applicable within the State of U.P. 11. The aforesaid argument on behalf of the respondent is exactly the same that was raised in the case of All India Council (supra) which has been followed in the decision of Gram Shiksha Sudhar Samiti (supra). The aforesaid argument on behalf of the respondent is exactly the same that was raised in the case of All India Council (supra) which has been followed in the decision of Gram Shiksha Sudhar Samiti (supra). Paragraph No. 8 of the subsequent Division Bench judgment after noticing the ratio of the earlier Division Bench is quoted herein below : “8. Considering the ratio of this judgment, it would be clear that the learned Division Bench has harmonised both the provisions so that both can be given effect to. The effect is that what can be gone into under Section 25 of the Act, cannot be gone into under the proviso to Section 4 of the Act. This, in our opinion, would be the proper reading of both the provisions without rendering any provision otiose.” 12. The decision in the case of Committee of Management v. Assistant Registrar and others, 2009(9) ADJ 742 : 2009(5) ESC 3675 (supra), which is a decision by a learned single Judge does not take notice of the judgment of the Division Bench as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner and noted herein above. It has been categorically held that what can be gone into under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act cannot be gone into under Section 4 of the Act. 13. The facts of this case clearly reflect that the dispute centres round not only the resolution dated 20.7.2006 but also the subsequent elections held by the petitioner on 10.8.2007. The Assistant Registrar has not only held the proceedings dated 20.7.2006 to be invalid but has gone a step further by declaring the elections and the constitution of a fresh Committee which was held on 10.8.2007. In such a situation, the facts of the case in the decision as relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent stands distinguished and the law as noted herein above and declared by this Court in the case of All India Council (supra) will hold the field. The Court is, accordingly, of the opinion that the impugned order would be squarely hit by the ratio of the Division Bench judgment referred to herein above and the order impugned passed by the Assistant Registrar cannot be sustained. 14. The Court is, accordingly, of the opinion that the impugned order would be squarely hit by the ratio of the Division Bench judgment referred to herein above and the order impugned passed by the Assistant Registrar cannot be sustained. 14. Even on first principles, the opening words of Section 25 (1) of the 1860 Act clearly spell out that “any doubt or dispute” raised about the “election or continuance” of office-bearers has to be decided by the Prescribed Authority under Section25 of the Act. The substitution of office-bearers on 20.7.2006 and the fresh elections on 10.8.2007 is a composite nature of dispute in which a reference was warranted. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 23.10.2009 is quashed. The matter stands remitted to the Prescribed Authority of the area concerned and the entire records shall be transmitted by the respondent No. 2 before the said authority within 3 weeks. The Prescribed Authority shall proceed to decide the dispute as expeditiously as possible preferably within 3 months from the date of receipt of the records. —————