JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—This writ petition has been preferred by Subhash Chandra Agrawal, Secretary of the Committee of a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1860 Act’) assailing the order passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Agra whereby he has proceeded to hold that the elections held in September, 2010, in which the petitioner claims to have been elected as Manager is invalid and further the former President and the Secretary are directed to give an opportunity of hearing to such members who had been allegedly expelled and then determine their status so as to finalize the electoral college of the Society. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is without jurisdiction and even erroneous on merits, inasmuch as, without recording any finding on the issue of membership, there was no occasion to have raised questions and then called upon the Society through its erstwhile office-bearers to decide the issue of membership. Further the elections could not have been invalid on such a ground and if there was any doubt or dispute then the same ought to have been referred by the Deputy Registrar to the prescribed authority of the area concerned as per the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the 1860 Act. 3. In response, Sri Pandey and Sri Namit Kumar Sharma appearing for the respondent No. 3 contend that no such irregularity has been committed by the Assistant Registrar and he has simply decided the matter as per the directions of this Court dated 5.10.2010 in Writ Petition No. 60894 of 2000. Reliance has been placed on behalf of the respondents in the case of Committee of Management, Kisan Shiksha Sadan, Banksahi, District Basti and another v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur and another, (1995) 2 UPLBEC 1242. 4. In response learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Gram Shiksha Sudhar Samiti, Junior High School, Sikandra, District Kanpur Dehat and another v. Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, U.P., Lucknow and others, 2010(7) ADJ 643 (DB) and the decision of a learned single Judge in the case of Karhal Education Society, Karhal, District Mainpuri and others v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Agra and others, 2006(6) ADJ 20 . 5. 5. Learned Standing Counsel has also been heard in opposition. 6. Sri Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and the learned Standing Counsel both submit that they do not propose to file any counter-affidavit and the matter be disposed of finally with a direction to the authority to decide the matter in accordance with law. 7. In view of the aforesaid position as consented to between the parties, the matter is being disposed of finally at this stage. 8. The order impugned has been passed in view of the direction given by this Court on 5th October, 2010. Needless to say that this Court issued a direction to the Deputy Registrar to act in accordance with law and not contrary to it. 9. The Deputy Registrar while proceeding to hear the objection of the nature presently involved was required to satisfy himself of the issues and then should have determined as to whether he could proceeded to decide the same. The hearing was concluded and suspicions were raised on account of non-production of certain documents and further without giving any reason, the membership of 27 persons was annulled. The Deputy Registrar did not proceed further and called upon the Ex-President and General Secretary to grant an opportunity of hearing and then decide the matter relating to membership. He has further directed the office-bearers to obtain approval on this issue. The aforesaid procedure of the Deputy Registrar is not in accordance with any of the provisions of the 1860 Act. Learned counsel for the respondents could not point out as to how the Assistant Registrar could have called upon the former office-bearers to decide the issue of membership and to then obtain an approval from him. The Deputy Registrar did not himself decide the validity of the membership. Thus, the Deputy Registrar even otherwise did not act any conformity of the directions dated 5.10.2010. 10. Not only this, the Deputy Registrar proceeded to hold the elections to be invalid which jurisdiction he did not possess, inasmuch as, in view of the law laid down by this Court and as referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter could have been decided only upon a reference under sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the 1860 Act. The decision relied upon by the respondents in the case of Committee of Management, Kisan Shiksha Sadan, Banksahi (supra) does not come to the aid of the respondents, inasmuch as, here the Deputy Registrar failed to exercise his discretion in the matter. On the contrary he further went on to declare the elections invalid which was beyond his jurisdiction in view of the discussion made hereinabove. 11. Accordingly, the order is unsustainable. Once the elections had been held and if any doubt or dispute had been raised then the said dispute could have been decided by the prescribed authority and could not have been scrutinized by the Deputy Registrar. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the order impugned dated 29.12.2010 is set aside. 12. The Deputy Registrar shall forthwith refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the 1860 Act after informing the parties concerned. The Prescribed Authority shall proceed to register the same as a dispute and decide it in accordance with law within a period of three months if possible after putting the concerned parties to notice. —————