By The Court—Heard learned counsel for the appellant Shri Manish Kumar, Shri M.B. Singh for opposite party no.1, learned Chief Standing Counsel for opposite party no.2, Sri Jyotinjai Verma for opposite party no. 3. Sri O.P. Srivastava has also been heard on behalf of opposite party no. 4. 2. The matter relates to the election of Madarsa Ahle Sunnat Islamiya Husainya Society, Faizabad. The dispute relating to the membership of the Society arose between appellant Anis Ahmad and respondent no. 4 Sageer Ahmad in the year 2005. It was decided by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Faizabad vide order dated 20th December, 2005. Subsequently the dispute of membership under Section 25(2) of the Act was decided by means of the order dated 31st October, 2007 and interim list of 15 members was declared and objections were invited from the rival claimants for the purpose of declaring final list of members, which was declared on 9.2.2010, and for holding election. Since the elections were to be held, District Minority Welfare Officer, Faizabad was nominated as Election Officer. Later on by means of the order dated 6.1.2011, the Finance and Accounts officer (Basic Education) Faizabad was appointed as Election Officer by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Faizabad Division. Election schedule was declared which was published in newspapers. Election Notification was issued on 14.1. 2011. However, before the election could be held, present respondent no. 4 moved an application on 18.8.2010 before the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits for review/ recall of the order dated 9.7.2010. On this application the Deputy Registrar sought opinion from the counsel of the department on 3.12.2010 as to whether review/ recall of the order can be done to which the counsel opined that no such power vests with the Deputy Registrar. 3. Feeling aggrieved respondent no. 4 filed writ petition no. 7301 of 2010 which was disposed of on 6.1.2011 with a direction to the Deputy Registrar to take a decision in the matter, if it is permitted under law. It was under the aforesaid directives, the Deputy Registrar issued notice to the parties requiring them to produce evidence in support of their claim and postponed the election for 14.1.2011. 4. The election has not so far been held. It was under the aforesaid directives, the Deputy Registrar issued notice to the parties requiring them to produce evidence in support of their claim and postponed the election for 14.1.2011. 4. The election has not so far been held. In the meantime, present writ petition was filed by the appellant, challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Registrar dated 21.1.2011, saying that Deputy Registrar does not have any power to review/ recall the order dated 9.7.2010. This writ petition has been disposed of by the order under challenge in appeal by the learned Single Judge. 5. The learned single Judge has directed the Deputy Registrar to decide the application for review/ recall of the order within given time. The order also shows that the counsel for the respondents did not have any objection in passing of such order. 6. Review petition was also filed by the appellant, saying that the counsel for the appellant had not conceded to the jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar regarding review but in any case it may be decided within fifteen days. The review petition was also dismissed by the learned single Judge vide order dated 14.2.2011. 7. The dispute regarding election of management committee of Madarsa Ahle Sunnat Islamiya Husainiya is continuing for the last several years. The absence of elected Committee of Management affects normal and smooth functioning of the Madarsa. The effort made by the Deputy Registrar to get the elections held after deciding membership dispute, have come to a hault for the reason that one party or the other is not satisfied with the list of the members finally declared by the Deputy Registrar. 8. It goes without saying that in a zeal to control the affairs of the institution, interested persons do not hesitate in continuing with the fight though it may adversely affect the interest of the institution and would not allow the formation of the committee of management as per bye laws and rules. No fruitful purpose will be served by such a litigation as the interested persons will always like to continue with litigation. unless they succeed in getting the list of members as per their own choice. No fruitful purpose will be served by such a litigation as the interested persons will always like to continue with litigation. unless they succeed in getting the list of members as per their own choice. Every person who can be said to be aggrieved, has a right to challenge the result of the elections in the appropriate forum but interference by the Court at the interim stages of elections is not warranted and the Court also reluctantly interferes in such matter nor passes any such order which has the effect of postponing the elections. 9. In the instant case, the dispute regarding membership was decided by the Deputy Registrar after hearing the parties on 9.7.2010 and the schedule of election was also notified on 14.1.2011. However, being dissatisfied, respondent no.4 moved an application for review/recall of the said order on 18.8.2010. On this application, when nothing was done by the Deputy Registrar, then writ petition bearing No.7301 (M/S) of 2010 was filed, which was decided on 6.1.2011. In this order, learned Single Judge did not consider himself the issue, whether review/recall was maintainable but left the issue open for the Deputy Registrar to decide the application. The Deputy Registrar on this application, did not consider or record any finding about maintainability of the review petition but issued notice saying that both the parties may come prepared with the necessary documents namely list of membership register etc. so that their claim could be scrutinized. 10. The order passed by the learned Single Judge in aforesaid writ petition 7301 (M/S) of 2010 did not permit the Deputy Registrar to proceed in the matter unless it was decided that review/recall application was maintainable. Since the appellant apprehended that the matter would be decided on merit, therefore he approached the High Court. This apprehension was because of the language used in the notice itself. Learned Single Judge has directed for deciding the application but again without making any observation on the plea whether review/recall application was maintainable or not, but there was also no direction for the Deputy Registrar to decide on the said issue not, rather a mention has been made that counsel for both the parties had agreed that the application be decided. 11. 11. Before we proceed further, we find that it appropriate to put up on record that though the learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that the counsel for the appellant did not agree before the learned Single Judge for getting the review application decided without determining its maintainable and for that matter he also filed review petition but the order says otherwise and the counsel for the respondents also in support of the order, says that the appellant counsel did agree before the learned Single Judge that the application be decided within fifteen days yet the question would be whether any such concession made would confer power upon the Deputy Registrar to review the order if otherwise he was having no jurisdiction to entertain such an application. 12. We do not find it expedient to delve into the question whether the learned counsel for the appellantýÿ did agree for getting the review application decided or not for the reason (i) there is an opinion of the Standing Counsel of the Department which is being owned by the counsel Shri M.B.Singh in the instant appeal saying that there was no power with the Deputy Registrar to review or recall its own order 9.7.2010 (ii).The concession made against law by counsel would not be binding nor would have any legal effect. 13. The issue does not require any discussion further for the reason that power of review/recall can be exercised by the statutory authority if such a power is given in the statute itself under which he works. Statutory power can be exercised only in the prescribed manner and not beyond that. Recall of the order can only be made if the order has been passed exparte i.e. without hearing the parties concerned. So far as review is concerned, that cannot be done by the administrative authority nor any authority who is exercising quasi judicial function unless this power is given under the statute. It is only on the ground of any order having been obtained by misrepresentation, fraud or collusion such authority will have power to review his order after affording opportunity to the parties. If one party or the other feels that the order is illegal for any reason whatsoever that would not call for review/recall of the order. 14. It is only on the ground of any order having been obtained by misrepresentation, fraud or collusion such authority will have power to review his order after affording opportunity to the parties. If one party or the other feels that the order is illegal for any reason whatsoever that would not call for review/recall of the order. 14. It is not the case of the respondent that he was not heard when the order dated 9.7.2010 was passed nor there is any such plea that the order was obtained by misrepresentation, fraud or collusion. In fact he wants rehearing of the matter by getting the evidence reappreciated once again by the Deputy Registrar. This cannot be allowed. 15. The result of the aforesaid discussions is that the power of review would not stand conferred upon the Deputy Registrar, even if both the parties agreed that the matter be decided by him. This apart, once the election process had started, there was no occasion for the Deputy Registrar to postpone the same nor this Court encourages the postponement of elections. 16. For the reasons stated above, the order 28.1.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the election officer is directed to proceed with the election and complete the same within one week. 17. The charge of committee of management of the Madarsa would be handed over to the newly elected committee immediately on being elected. Any person who is aggrieved with the elections, can challenge the same before the appropriate forum where the validity of the voter lists i.e. list of members can also be seen. 18. Special appeal is allowed. _____________