V.K. Shukla, J.— Petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of the order dated 27.01.2011 passed by Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Kanpur. Brief background of the case, as mentioned by the petitioners, is that there is a registered society known as Kanya Vidyalaya Kisrauli Pargana Shamshabad Pacchim Post Kisrauli Tehsil Kayamganj District Farrukhabad. It was initially got registered on 17.09.1982. The aforesaid Society is governed by the registered bye laws and according to the bye laws the term of the Committee of Management is three years. Earlier election of Committee of Management was held in 2006 in which one Raj Kumar was elected as President and Ram Naresh, father of the petitioner, was elected as Manager. Fresh election was held on 25.07.2009, in which Raj Kumar was re-elected as President and Ram Naresh was also re-elected as Manager. The list of office bearers of the Committee of Management of the Society was submitted before the Deputy Registrar along with an application for renewal of the registration which was duly accepted and the registration was done for a period of five years on 15.01.2010. Unfortunately, Sri Ram Naresh Gangwar, Manager of the Committee of Management, expired on 07.05.2010. A meeting was held on 08.05.2010. Agenda was circulated after obtaining the signatures of the members and petitioner No.2 was inducted as a member of the general body. It was further decided that another meeting of the general body would be held on 12th May 2010 for filling up the vacancy of Manager. Then, it was ultimately resolved that the petitioner can be elected as Manager for the remaining term in place of Ram Naresh. It is also averred that President of the Society was also present and he signed the resolution. After signing the said resolution, the list was submitted before the Deputy Registrar with the proceeding. By order dated 21st May 2010, the Deputy Registrar has accepted the list of the office bearers, which was submitted by the petitioner. Thereafter, it appears that complaint was made, complaining therein that petitioner No.2 was never a member in the proceeding of the General Body dated 08.05.2010 and 12.05.2010 and the proceedings had been manipulated by him. By order dated 21st May 2010, the Deputy Registrar has accepted the list of the office bearers, which was submitted by the petitioner. Thereafter, it appears that complaint was made, complaining therein that petitioner No.2 was never a member in the proceeding of the General Body dated 08.05.2010 and 12.05.2010 and the proceedings had been manipulated by him. Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits thereafter heard the matter and passed order dated 17.08.2010, holding that petitioner No.2 was not member of the General Body of the society and the proceedings had been manipulated by him. At the said juncture, petitioner preferred writ petition No.52661 of 2010, and this Court on 30.08.2010 proceeded to pass following order: "In such circumstances, learned counsel for the respondent submits that respondent No.2 on the basis of relevant record was of the conclusion that as the petitioner was not the primary member of the Society, therefore, he cannot become the Manager of the Institution for the remaining period. A finding has also been recorded that the petitioner has failed to produce the relevant documents and the documents submitted does not indicate that he was a member of the Society. After considering the submissions of the parties, I am of the view that no finding has been recorded by the respondent No.2 that under what circumstances he is discarding the affidavits filed in support of the petitioner which was seven in number. Further, the same authority on the basis of the documents submitted regarding membership and election of the petitioner as Manager has considered the claim of the petitioner and held that after the death of the erstwhile Manager the petitioner has been elected as Manager and he will act for remaining term. The respondent No.2 has not appreciated and recorded a finding considering each and every aspect that what were the circumstances regarding rejecting the claim of the petitioner in spite of the fact that in the earlier proceeding signature of the President was there and now the President has made an application that he has not participated in the earlier proceeding. The respondent No.2 has not appreciated and recorded a finding considering each and every aspect that what were the circumstances regarding rejecting the claim of the petitioner in spite of the fact that in the earlier proceeding signature of the President was there and now the President has made an application that he has not participated in the earlier proceeding. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, both the parties have made a suggestion before this Court that in case the matter is remitted back to the respondent No.2 and he may be permitted to consider the issue again on the basis of relevant record after recording a detailed and reasoned finding, then they have no objection, if the issue is decided again. In such circumstances, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at this stage with the consent of the parties directing the respondent No. 2 to consider the claim of the parties on the basis of relevant records after giving full opportunity to them without any influence of the order dated 17.08.2010. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly." Thereafter, matter has been decided by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, and again finding of fact has been returned that petitioner No.2 was not member of the General Body of the society and the proceedings had been manipulated by him. A this juncture, present writ petition has been filed. Sri Gopal Mishra, Advocate, holding brief of Sri M.N. Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended with vehemence that in the present case dispute in question was primarily in respect of election and as such the same ought to have been referred to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and coupled with this relevant materials furnished by the petitioners and as directed by this Court on earlier occasion have not been adverted to, as such writ petition in question deserves to be allowed. Countering the said submissions, Sri P.S. Baghel, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Gautam Baghel, Advocate, on the other hand, has contended that this is a glaring case of fraud and manipulation, and the petitioner No.2 has miserably failed to show and substantiate as to in what way and manner he had been inducted as primary member of the General Body of the society, and further entire proceedings had been manipulated by him, and circumstances are speaking for itself, and once claim itself was in-genuine and petitioner No. 2 had not been found member of the General Body of the society, as such matter was not liable to be referred to the Prescribed Authority, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position which emerges in the present case is that father of petitioner No. 2, Ram Naresh Gasngwar expired on 07.05.2010, petitioners claim that on the very next day, i.e., 08.05.2010 after obtaining signatures of the members, petitioner No. 2 was inducted as member of the General Body of the Society. He further claims that meeting of the General Body was held on 12.05.2010 for filling the vacancy of Manager and in the said meeting, it was resolved to elect him as Manager for the remaining term; list of office bearers was accepted by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits on 21.05.2010. As order had been procured from the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, the Deputy Manager made complaint and his complaint was supported by the President and three members of the Committee of Management, namely, Kishan Singh, Virendra Singh and Jitendra Singh, complaining that entire proceedings were forged by petitioner No.2 and he was not even primary member of the society. The Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits considered the matter and found the complaint to be truthful, as such order dated 07.08.2010 was passed. Thereafter on writ petition No.52661 of 2010 being preferred, this Court asked the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits to give re-look to the matter on the basis of evidence adduced. The Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits considered the matter and found the complaint to be truthful, as such order dated 07.08.2010 was passed. Thereafter on writ petition No.52661 of 2010 being preferred, this Court asked the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits to give re-look to the matter on the basis of evidence adduced. The Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, thereafter has considered the matter and after taking into account the respective documents produced by respective parties, has recorded categorical finding of fact that under the provisions of the bye-laws of the society, right to convene meeting is with the President and right to collect donation etc. and to issue receipt is with the Manager, and at no point of time any meeting had been convened by the President and at no point of time any receipt has been issued by the Deputy Manager, accepting petitioner No. 2 as member of the General Body of the society, and in this background has recorded finding of fact that as per bye-laws of the society, enrollment of petitioner as member is not at all substantiated. Under the bye-laws of the society meeting can be convened after giving seven days notice for general meeting and three days' notice for special meeting. Here in the present case, father of petitioner No. 2 died on 07.05.2010 and straightaway he claims to have been inducted as member in the meeting conducted on the very next day and was enrolled as member. Holding of meeting on the face of it is illegal. However, the said factum has been seriously disputed by the Deputy Manager and the President by saying that the meeting could have been convened only by the President and in case petitioner No. 2 was accepted as member, receipt should have been issued by the Deputy Manager, and factually such situation has not been substantiated. Once this is the factual scenario that petitioner No. 2 has failed to show and substantiate the factum of his membership, the meeting being illegal on the face of it and the theory set up by him has not at all been found credible, as such Deputy Registrar, Firms and Societies in this background was not at obliged to make reference under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act. Qua the finding of fact recorded by Deputy Registrar in his order, petitioner has not submitted any reasonable or plausible explanation warranting to take different view in the matter. Once finding of fact has been recorded that the petitioner was not validly enrolled member and the entire proceedings had been manipulated by him, then there is no occasion to interfere with the order dated 27.01.2011. However, it is made clear that against the order passed under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, petitioner in case he so desires approach the Prescribed Authority after mustering support of one-fourth members of the General Body of the society under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act and against the decision decision taken by the Prescribed Authority, petitioner can also institute suit, in the facts of the case, for declaration of his rights, as order passed under Section 4 is always subject to order passed by Prescribed Authority. In terms of above observations, writ petition stands disposed of. _____________