JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajiv Sharma, J.—Heard Sri Sunil Sharma and Vinod Kumar Singh-II, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2. 2. Through the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners challenge the order No. 2495 II/1-9121/02-03/Faizabad dated 10.9.2003 contained as Annexure 1 to the writ petition, whereby the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, U.P., Faizabad, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 4 (1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, approved the list of Managing Committee submitted by the opposite party No. 3-Shri Kamla Prasad Misra. It has also been prayed that a writ in the nature of Mandamus be issued directing the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 to register the Managing Committee of the Tehta Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Sultanpur elected on 22.7.2002 under Section 4 (1) of the Act. 3. Brief facts, giving rise to the instant writ petition, are that Tehta Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Agai, Sultanpur, which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, came into force in the year 1959 and is managing the Junior High School, Agai, Sultanpur. There were 25 members in the General Body of the Samiti. The registration of the Society was renewed from time to time. 4. On 27.7.1997, a meeting of the General Body of the Society was held, in which, 24 members were present and the election for the new Managing Committee was held, wherein petitioner No. 1 was elected as President and petitioner No. 2 as Manager of the Society. Thereafter, the newly elected Managing Committee was registered under Section 4 (1) of the Act as the office bearers of the earlier Managing Committee had given their no objection and also signed a list of newly elected office bearers. 5. In the year 2000, renewal of the registration of the Society was due and as such, petitioner No. 2 being Manager of the Society deposited the renewal fee and other documents in the month of April, 2000. Thereafter, vide order dated 20.4.2002, the registration of Society was renewed for five years w.e.f. 10.10.2000. 6. According to petitioners, they have been continued to discharge their functions as President and Manager, respectively, of the Society w.e.f. 27.7.1997 for a period of five years. Thereafter, vide order dated 20.4.2002, the registration of Society was renewed for five years w.e.f. 10.10.2000. 6. According to petitioners, they have been continued to discharge their functions as President and Manager, respectively, of the Society w.e.f. 27.7.1997 for a period of five years. Since the tenure of the Managing Committee was going to expire on 27.7.2003, a decision was taken to convene a meeting of the members of the Society for election. Accordingly, on 22.7.2002, a meeting of the General Body of the Society was convened for holding the election and the new managing body was elected unanimously, in which petitioners were re-elected as President and Manager of the Society. On 1.7.2002, an application was preferred by the opposite party No. 3 (Shri Kamla Prasad Misra) to the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, U.P., Lucknow, annexing therewith the minutes of the election proceedings dated 22.6.2002 and the list of elected members of the Managing Committee 2002-2003. On receipt of the said application, the Deputy Registrar invited objections from the petitioners, to which petitioners submitted their detailed reply before the Deputy Registrar and also submitted their affidavits, stating therein that no meeting of the General Body took place on 16.5.2001 and no election was held on 27.6.2002. Subsequently, the Deputy Registrar, vide order dated 10.9.2003, approved the list of Managing Committee submitted by the opposite party No. 3-Shri Kamla Prasad Misra. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 27.6.2002, petitioners have preferred the instant writ petition inter alia on the grounds that the action of the opposite parties is arbitrary, illegal and against the principal of natural justice insofar as opposite party No. 3, without considering the fact that opposite party No. 3 was removed from the membership of the society as he was defaulter in payment of membership fee to the society, accorded recognition to a body which was never been elected. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners challenged the impugned order on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners and in effect, the impugned order is merely ex parte. It was also urged that the Deputy Registrar had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order as the only course left open to him was to have referred the dispute about the election of the rival Committee of Management to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Act. 9. It was also urged that the Deputy Registrar had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order as the only course left open to him was to have referred the dispute about the election of the rival Committee of Management to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Act. 9. On behalf of the petitioners, it was urged that the Registrar himself has no Jurisdiction under Section 4(1) of the Act to hear and decide any doubt or dispute in respect of an election or continuance in office of an office bearer of a society, and, therefore, any decision given by him in this regard will be wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel maintains that the Dy. Registrar was legally under obligation to refer the dispute of the nature raised before him to the Prescribed Authority. 10. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 3 submits that no election as mentioned by the petitioners dated 27.7.2003 was ever held and no Committee of Management was formed by them. The Fact is that earlier President Ram Sukh Tripathi has called the General Meeting on 27.6.2002, in which, earlier ex-President and Ex-Manager were present and the election was held unanimously in which opposite party No. 3 was elected as Manager of the Institution and Smt. Sunita Devi was elected as a President. He further submitted that before holding the meeting in respect of the election, a publication was also made by Sri Ram Sukh Tripathi, the then Adhyaksh inviting objection in respect of the valid members of the Societies and a tentative list was fixed at the notice board of School on 5.6.2002 and the date of objection was fixed 12.6.2002. During the objection time i.e. 12.6.2002, no objection was made by any member of the Societies, then, again a publication was made by Sri Ram Sukh Tripathi but even then, no objection has been received in respect of tentative list of members. Accordingly, the tentative list was finalized as valid list of members. On the basis of the said list, an election of Management committee of the School was held on 27.6.2002 in which Smt. Sunita Devi was elected as President, Sri Kamla Prasad Misra (opposite party No. 3) was elected as Manager whereas Sri Pawan Kumar Pandey was elected as Sanchalak unanimously. The said fact was also published by Sri Ram Sukh Tripathi in the news item. The said fact was also published by Sri Ram Sukh Tripathi in the news item. 11. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties further submits that after the publication of the elections in the news items, no objection was filed by the petitioners. Thus, it is crystal clear that the election of the present Management Committee was held by the outgoing Committee, in which present petitioners were elected as President and Manager, respectively. He submits that after the election dated 27.6.2002, opposite party No. 3 has submitted an application to the District Basic Education Officer, Sultanpur to the effect that his signature be attested as a Manager and undisputed certificate of the Samiti be issued to him. The District Inspector of School, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, had attested the signature of the opposite party No. 3 as a Manager of the School on 6.8.2002. Thereafter, the opposite party No. 3 is functioning as a Manager of the Institution without any hindrance. 12. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties further submits that during the pendency of the instant writ petition, the election took place and a new Committee of Management took over the charge. Furthermore, the signature of opposite party No. 3 was also approved and on his signature, salaries of school staff were dispensed with. Thus, the writ petition has rendered infructuous on this ground alone. 13. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is settled law that if there is any doubt or dispute about the election of the Committee of management or the office bearers, such a dispute cannot be resolved by Deputy Registrar in exercise of his powers under Sections 3A and 4 of the Act and he is left with no option but to refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority for being decided under the provisions of Section 25 of the Act. 14. 14. Before entering into the controversy whether the impugned order, in effect, is an order passed under Section 4 of the Act or amounts to usurpation of the power of the Prescribed Authority, as contemplated under Section 25 of the Act, it would be proper to make a reference to the celebrated decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Shiksha Prasar Samiti Allahabad and another v. Registrar, Societies, Chits and Firms, U. P., Lucknow and others, 1998 (1) UPLBEC 399, in which it was observed that in a case in which both the sides are seeking renewal of registration of the same society, they cannot be said to be aggrieved party, if the renewal of the registration is granted by the authority concerned. The renewal is of the registration of the society and it is for the benefit of all the members and office bearers of the society. There may be a situation that two rival factions of the same society may apply for renewal separately and the renewal may be granted at the instance of one of them but the ultimate beneficiary shall be the society as a whole and not the individuals alone seeking renewal. In such a situation after renewal of the registration of the society, the dispute about renewal must be taken to have come to an end. A stranger cannot and should not be allowed to claim renewal of registration of the society. In the instant case, the renewal of the certificate of registration has been allowed at the instance of opposite party No. 3 who cannot be said to be a stranger. 15. The scope and object of provisions of Section 4 and Section 25 of the Act are quite separate and distinct. Under Section 4, annual list of managing body is to be filed before the Registrar for record. The list of the managing body is to be countersigned by the old members and if the old office bearers do not countersign the list, the Registrar may, in his discretion, issue a public notice or notice to such persons as he thinks fit inviting objections within a specified period and is required to decide all objections received within the said period. It is a sort of administrative enquiry. It is a sort of administrative enquiry. On the other hand, the Prescribed Authority on a reference made to it, by the Registrar or by at least 1/4th of the members of a society, 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 deem fit. The Prescribed Authority has the power to set aside the election of an office bearer if he is satisfied that any corrupt practice has been committed by such office-bearer, that the nomination of any candidate has been improperly rejected or that the result of the election, insofar as it concerns the such office-bearer, has been materially affected by the improper acceptance of any nomination or by improper rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote, which is void or by any non-compliance with the provisions of the rules of the society. 16. Section 25 of the Act contemplates different situation. It is attracted only when there is no dispute in respect of registration of society or Its renewal of certificate of registration but there is dispute between two rival parties each of whom is claiming to be validly elected body. In such a situation, the dispute between the two rival parties has to be referred for adjudication under Section 25 of the Act. Section 25 of the Act is also attracted when a party challenges the legality or otherwise of the election of particular set of office-bearers of society on the grounds enumerated in Section 25 of the Act. Thus, the dispute under Section 25 of the Act can be referred for adjudication only when it is found that the registration of the society or its renewal is intact. 17. Thus, the dispute under Section 25 of the Act can be referred for adjudication only when it is found that the registration of the society or its renewal is intact. 17. In Kranti Kumar Chaturvedi and others v. District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur and others, 1995 (3) ESC 166 (All), a Division Bench of this Court has clearly ruled that Section 25 of the Act would be attracted if ‘there is dispute between two rival parties each of whom is claiming to be validly elected body’ and that the Section ‘is also attracted when a party challenges the legality or otherwise of the election of particular act of office-bearer of the society on the grounds enumerated in Section 25 of the Act.’ The Division Bench has further ruled that Section 25 would be attracted to a dispute of the nature aforesaid, ‘only when there is no dispute in respect of registration of society or its renewal of certificate of registration.’ 18. A reference may also be made to another decision of the Division Bench in Shambhu Kumar Tripathi v. Asstt. Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, AIR 1994 All 209 . In which it was observed : “.....It is evident from Section 3A that renewal of the certificate of registration of a society is within the exclusive jurisdiction/domain of the Registrar which term includes Asstt. Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits. The power to renew a certificate of registration being expressly and exclusively conferred upon the Registrar, the Registrar would be deemed to possess all incidental and ancillary powers as may be considered necessary for an effective exercise of the power under Section 3A of the Act.” 19. It is no use to refer to the plethora of decisions on the point as it would unnecessarily burden this judgment. The fact remains that so far as renewal of certificate of the society is concerned, it can be done by the Registrar and Prescribed Authority has nothing to do with it and, therefore, the order of Deputy Registrar-opposite party No. 2 insofar as it allowed the proceeding for renewal of certificate of registration initiated and culminated in the order of renewal for a specified period at the instance of opposite party No. 3, warrants no interference as apparently, the Deputy Registrar has committed no illegality. It is not in all the cases that the Deputy Registrar is bound to refer the dispute under Section 25 to the Prescribed Authority. In the absence of a reference by the Deputy Registrar, petitioners may also go in for a reference provided they are in a position to muster the strength of one-fourth of the members of the registered society. Section 25 itself contemplates that independent of a reference by the Registrar, a reference may be made by at least one fourth of the members of the registered society. 20. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order is vitiated on account of non-observance of principles of natural justice is wide off the mark. As a matter of fact, the petitioners’ Committee filed objections before the Deputy Registrar and had the occasion and opportunity to place material in support of their objections. The petitioners availed the full opportunity of hearing. Even, otherwise, in matters, where observance of principles of natural Justice would have made no difference and the admitted or undisputed or unrebutable facts speaking for themselves lead to a situation where only one conclusion is possible under the law, issuing of a writ to compel the observance of natural Justice is not at all called for. In my view, firstly it is not a case in which principles of natural justice have been violated and secondly, even if it be so, a writ shall not issue for the mere asking of the petitioners as the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and was passed after consideration of the material available on record. Consideration of the material on record itself by the concerned authority in some cases fulfils the requirement of the principles of natural justice. In this behalf, a reference may also profitably be made to a decision of this Court in Committee of Management, Anujitman Moin-ut-Tulaba, Bulandshahr v. Dy. Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Meerut and others, 1998 (34) ALR 442, wherein a similar view has been taken by this Court. 21. In conclusion, there is no justification, whatsoever, to interfere with the impugned order (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits-opposite party No. 2. It may also be noticed that from the records, it also comes out that subsequent election took place on 24.6.2007 and the signature of Kamla Prasad Mishra was attested. 21. In conclusion, there is no justification, whatsoever, to interfere with the impugned order (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits-opposite party No. 2. It may also be noticed that from the records, it also comes out that subsequent election took place on 24.6.2007 and the signature of Kamla Prasad Mishra was attested. No where it has been stated that the said election proceedings have been assailed in any proceedings. The writ petition is devoid of any merits and substance and it is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. ——————