JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sunil Hali, J.—The question required to be answered in this writ petition is as to whether the reliance can be placed on the list of members which does not stand certified by the Registrar under provisions of the Registration of Society Act 1860. In order to determine the controversy involved in this writ petition, the facts of the case are noted below : 2. A society has been registered under the Society Registration Act 1860 under the name and style of Gramya Vikas Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Khuthan, District Jaunpur bearing registration No. 39/1954-55 dated 17.3.1954. The society has framed its bye-laws. The said bye-laws stood amended in the year 1978. Under the bye laws, the society is to be managed by Committee of Management in accordance therewith which consists of 15 members with seven office bearers namely President, two vice President, Manager/Secretary, Officiating Manager, Assistant Manager and Treasurer. Term of the Committee of Management is specified for three years. The election of the Committee of Management is conducted by the Electoral College consisting of the members of the Society. The said members are required to be admitted on the basis of the bye-laws formulated by the said Society. 3. Periodical elections have been held from 1986. Strength of the electoral college in the year 1980 comprises of 110 members. Election of 1992 was held on the electoral college of 106 members as between 1989 to 1992 four members had expired. Election of 1995 was held on the strength of 95 members as during the period 1992 to 1995 eleven members had expired. The dispute seems to have arisen with respect to the strength of the electoral college in the year 1995. On the strength of the electoral college, election was held on 1.7.1995 and the committee of Management with Basdev Tiwari as President and Laxmi Shanker Yadav as the Manager was constituted. Another election was held in the year 1998 on the strength of 98 members. Rival claim was submitted by Hari Nath Yadav, who claim to be elected as Manager on the strength of 127 members. In view of the rival claims raised proceedings were initiated by the Assistant Registrar who vide his order dated 13.9.2001 proceeded to discard both the elections on the premises that the term of the Committee of Management had expired. Rival claim was submitted by Hari Nath Yadav, who claim to be elected as Manager on the strength of 127 members. In view of the rival claims raised proceedings were initiated by the Assistant Registrar who vide his order dated 13.9.2001 proceeded to discard both the elections on the premises that the term of the Committee of Management had expired. The power under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act 1860 was invoked for holding fresh elections by the Assistant Registrar. Another order was passed by the Assistant Registrar dated 13.11.2001 holding that fresh election is to be held on the basis of the strength of 106 members as existed in the year 1992. This order was accompanied by a list of 106 members. 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 13.11.2001 one Vijay Kumar Yadav and six other persons preferred a Civil Misc Writ Petition being C.M.W.P. No. 39503 of 2001. This writ petition was disposed off by this Court vide order dated 29.11.2001 with the direction to the Assistant Registrar to pass a fresh order. It was directed that before initiating the process of election electoral college of the society should be finalised. In pursuance to the direction Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi passed an order on 20.5.2002 reiterating his decision to hold fresh election under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act on the basis of list of 106 members. This order was accompanied by the list of 106 members. Again this order was challenged before this Court in Civil Misc Writ Petition No. 24644 of 2002 (Vijay Kumar Yadav and others v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi and others). Interim direction was issued by the Court staying the operation of the order dated 21.6.2002 passed by learned single Judge. The writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 4.9.2009. 5. During the pendency of the writ petition No. 24644 of 2002 one Paras Nath Yadav claimed himself to be Manager/Secretary filed a Civil Misc Writ Petition No. 77364 of 2005 for direction to the Assistant Registrar for granting renewal on the basis of his application dated 26.12.2005. This writ petition was finally disposed off with the direction to the Assistant Registrar to consider and decide the representation filed by Paras Nath Yadav. This writ petition was finally disposed off with the direction to the Assistant Registrar to consider and decide the representation filed by Paras Nath Yadav. Acting on the direction of this Court, Assistant Registrar proceeded to pass an order dated 19.1.2010 holding that the Committee of Management was time barred from the year 2001 itself and declined to grant any relief to the said Paras Nath Yadav. It was directed that in view of the fact that the tenure of the Committee of Management had expired the election under Section 25(2) of the Act was required to be held. While passing the order of holding the election, another order came to be passed on 13.4.2010 directing that fresh election be held on the strength of 57 members. List of members had reduced on account of death of 49 members which initially was 106 members. Aggrieved by this order, a Civil Misc Writ Petition No. 27295 of 2010 was preferred by Paras Nath Yadav. The Court, on the basis of the statement made by learned counsel for the respondents that the election had been held and the result declared on 2.5.2010, observed that the petitioner had remedy to approach the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act. In pursuance of the said direction, respondent Nos. 6 and 7 filed a petition under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act 1860 before the Deputy District Magistrate, Shahganj, District Jaunpur. The plea raised by private respondents therein was that the Committee of Management headed by Paras Nath Yadav, respondent No. 6 was elected on 2.5.2010 in which 126 members were shown to have participated out of strength of 240 members of the general body. In the said petition, an application was appended with the signatures of one fourth members of the general body. On the basis of the application/petition under Section 25(1) of the Act, Deputy District Magistrate, Shahganj, District Jaunpur proceeded to discard the order of the Assistant Registrar dated 13.4.2010 and also the election held on the basis of the said electoral college on 2.5.2010. Further direction was issued that fresh election be conducted on the strength of 240 members after excluding the dead persons. This order is subject-matter of challenge before this Court. 6. Further direction was issued that fresh election be conducted on the strength of 240 members after excluding the dead persons. This order is subject-matter of challenge before this Court. 6. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the prescribed authority could not have entertained the application under Section 25(1) of the Act as the same was not made by one fourth member of the Society. It was signed only by two members who are private respondent Nos. 6 and 7, hence the reference made was incompetent. Consequently the prescribed authority lacks jurisdiction to pass any order. It is further submitted that the Prescribed Authority could entertain the dispute under Section 25(1) of the Act in respect of a dispute relating to an election or continuance of office bearers of such society. The election can be set aside only on the ground (a) any malpractice committed by office bearers; (b) nomination of the candidates has been improperly rejected; (c) result of the election in so far as concerned office bearers has been effected by improper acceptance of any nomination or any vote or acceptance of any vote or for non compliance of any rule of the society. 7. The Prescribed Authority has proceeded to adjudicate upon the veracity of electoral college submitted by the two contesting parties which jurisdiction he lacks. Reliance placed by the Prescribed Authority on the electoral college of 240 members which was never certified by the Registrar under Sections 4, 15 and 25 of the Act. This was done contrary to what was held by the Assistant Registrar. This order was passed in the year 2001. 8. On the other hand stand of the respondents is that the list of 240 members was certified and countersigned by the DIOS vide his communication dated 30.4.2003. Election was conducted in the year 1995 on the basis of strength of 240 members which constitutes the electoral college of society. It is further contended that 71 members whose signatures were appended alongwith petition/reference filed by respondent Nos. 6 and 7 were genuine members of the society. It is wrong to allege that they were not genuine members of the general body. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. Prescribed authority while dealing with the reference made by respondent Nos. 6 and 7 were genuine members of the society. It is wrong to allege that they were not genuine members of the general body. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. Prescribed authority while dealing with the reference made by respondent Nos. 6 and 7 has rejected the findings of the Assistant Registrar in respect of strength of electoral college submitted by the petitioners and has returned his finding by certifying the electoral college consisting of 240 members submitted by respondents which fact stood certified by the District Inspector of Schools whether the prescribed authority could have discarded the finding of Assistant Registrar in this behalf is required to be examined. 10. In order to appreciate this controversy, what is the role and power of the Registrar and the Prescribed Authority under the societies Registration Act is required to be considered. Section 25(1) of the Act confers powers and jurisdiction on the Prescribed Authority under the Societies Registration Act. He, on a reference made to him by the registrar or by at least 1/4th members of the society, is empowered to hear and decide in a summary manner: (i) any dispute in respect of the election; or (ii) continuance in office of an office bearer of a society. The first proviso to Section 25(1) mentions factors on which election of an office bearer can be set aside. Explanations I and II to the Section 25(1) define ‘corrupt practices’. Explanation III empowers the State Government to prescribe procedure of hearing before the Prescribed Authority. Explanation I suggests that only an election in respect of individual may be challenged before the Prescribed Authority, but the use of the word ‘doubt’ in Section 25(1) shows that the prescribed authority has jurisdiction to decide, not only about an the election of an individual candidate, but is also empowered to decide if there are two competing committees of management. If there are two different elections and two different sets of office bearers, even then the prescribed authority can consider their claim. He can look into a dispute in respect of entire elections. If the two factions claim separate elections, they create doubt in the decision of each other. Such dispute, namely between two competing governing bodies is within the jurisdiction of the Prescribed authority. He has jurisdiction to decide such disputes under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act. He can look into a dispute in respect of entire elections. If the two factions claim separate elections, they create doubt in the decision of each other. Such dispute, namely between two competing governing bodies is within the jurisdiction of the Prescribed authority. He has jurisdiction to decide such disputes under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act. 11. The Registrar under the Societies Registration Act includes Additional, Joint, Deputy or Assistant Registrar on whom the powers under the Societies Registration Act are delegated (Section 21). The Registrar, under the Societies Registration Act, can (i) register a society, consider objections against the same (Section 3); (ii) consider change in name and objects of a society (Section 12-B); (iii) cancel the registration of a society (Section 12-D) (iv) apply /refer for dissolution of a society (Section 13 and 13-A); (v) call for information for from a society (Section 21); (vi) order for audit of a society (Section 23); (vii) investigate any affair of a society (Section 24); (viii) call for a meeting to hold election in case elected term is over {Section 25(2)}; (ix) call for objection and decide the same if the names of governing body is different than the previous one, if not certified by the previous members (Section 4); (x) refer doubt or dispute regarding election to the prescribed authority (Section 25(1); 12. In order to appreciate this controversy, prescribed authority in exercise of power under Section 25(1) of the Act of 1860 adjudicating the dispute relating to validity of election has power to ascertain actual number of members to the general body entitled to participate in such election. What the act provides is that in order to find out which is legally constituted managing committee it is necessary to examine that the said committee has been constituted by the legally authorised electoral college. It will have to examine the manner in which voters have been admitted in accordance with the rules and regulation and have paid subscription. While determining the dispute actual strength of the electoral college has to be examined in the context of the rules and bye-laws. If there is no error in certifying the electoral college under the scheme of the Act Prescribed Authority cannot hold a view contrary to that by overlooking this aspect. While determining the dispute actual strength of the electoral college has to be examined in the context of the rules and bye-laws. If there is no error in certifying the electoral college under the scheme of the Act Prescribed Authority cannot hold a view contrary to that by overlooking this aspect. It is the Assistant Registrar who while exercising power under Section 25 (2) of the Act of 1860 in allowing the election process has power to examine the correctness of the electoral college. This is so because he is required to conduct the election and by implication he has duty cast upon to certify the electoral college on the basis of which election has been held. Prescribed authority’s power is only to examine the legality of election and continuance of office bearers which also requires as to whether they have been elected by legally constituted electoral college. If he finds that the said election has not been conducted by legally constituted electoral college he can set aside the election based on such electoral college. Prescribed Authority cannot affirm the electoral college which has not been legally constituted. 13. Second aspect of the matter is as to whether the prescribed authority has. while setting aside the findings of the Assistant Registrar, rightly concluded that 240 members are legally constituted electoral college. In this behalf, he laid stress upon recognition granted by District Inspector of Schools of 240 members. Prima facie, the District Inspector of Schools has no competence to certify the correctness of the electoral college. This was sole domain of the Assistant Registrar who could certify the electoral college. It is admitted fact that the election of 1995 is said to have been conducted by the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and also by the petitioners was subject-matter of challenge before the Assistant Registrar. The matter was referred to the Assistant Registrar as both the claimants who were heading the Managing Committee had outlived their tenure. Finding in this respect has been recorded that the electoral college consist of 106 members and not 240 members. This by itself was confirmation of the fact that the list of 240 members was not accepted. Reliance placed by the Prescribed Authority in this behalf on the certificate issued by the District Inspection of Schools was contrary to the statute. Finding in this respect has been recorded that the electoral college consist of 106 members and not 240 members. This by itself was confirmation of the fact that the list of 240 members was not accepted. Reliance placed by the Prescribed Authority in this behalf on the certificate issued by the District Inspection of Schools was contrary to the statute. List of 240 members has never been certified by the Assistant Registrar while exercising its power under the Societies Registration Act 1860. In this behalf an order was passed by the Assistant Registrar on 13.10.2001. This order was challenged by the Vijay Kumar Yadav in Civil Misc Writ Petition being C.M.W.P. No. 39503 of 2001 and on the direction issued by this Court, Assistant Registrar reconsidered the matter and passed an order on 20.5.2002 reiterating his decision to hold fresh election under Section 25(2) of the Act on the basis of list of 106 members. This order was again challenged in Civil Misc Writ Petition No. 24644 of 2002 (Vijay Kumar Yadav and others v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi and others) which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 4.9.2009. 14. Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 raised a new dispute by filing a Civil Misc Writ Petition No. 77364 of 2005 for direction to the Assistant Registrar for granting renewal on the basis of his application dated 26.12.2005. On the basis of the direction issued by the Court, Assistant Registrar proceeded to pass an order dated 19.1.2010 holding that the Committee consisting of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 has outlived its tenure and decided to hold the election under Section 25(2) of the Act. In its order dated 13.4.2010, Assistant Registrar held that fresh election has to be held on the strength of 106 members out of which 49 members are said to have died leaving 57 members to be legally constituted electoral college. This order has been set aside by the Prescribed Authority in exercise of power under Section 25(1) of the Act. 15. On going through the aforesaid order, it is clearly seen that at no point of time list of 240 members was ever given legitimacy by the Assistant Registrar while exercising its statutory power under the Act of 1860. This order has been set aside by the Prescribed Authority in exercise of power under Section 25(1) of the Act. 15. On going through the aforesaid order, it is clearly seen that at no point of time list of 240 members was ever given legitimacy by the Assistant Registrar while exercising its statutory power under the Act of 1860. Contest was always in respect of the actual members of the electoral college which was certified by the Assistant Registrar by passing orders in the year 2001 as also on 13.4.2010. Once the Assistant Registrar has concluded in the year 2001 that the electoral college consists of 106 members there was nothing before the Prescribed Authority to come to a conclusion that it consists of 240 members. This fact in itself would show that the Prescribed Authority has travelled beyond its jurisdiction in certifying the electoral college of 240 members. As already stated above, the Prescribed Authority’s power to adjudicate on issue is only restricted to the question as to whether the electoral college has been validly constituted or not. It cannot certify the electoral college which was not affirmed by the competent authority while examining the validity of the electoral college. It in itself does not give power to certify the electoral college on the basis of his own opinion. Reliance placed by him on the certificate granted by DIOS was not permissible under law. All that it was empowered to do was only to hold that the elections have not been conducted on the basis of electoral college which was not validly constituted. It cannot substitute its view with that of Assistant Registrar. If there is any such illegality found the matter is required to be referred back to the Assistant Registrar which he had failed to do. As a matter of fact, he has placed reliance only on the order of certification passed by the District Inspector of Schools who had no such authority. 16. Next question that calls for consideration is as to whether the reference has been made in accordance with Section 25(1) of the Act of 1860. It is admitted case of the respondents that reference was filed by respondent Nos. 6 and 7 which was accompanied by the signatures of 71 members whom they claims to be members of the general body. It is admitted case of the respondents that reference was filed by respondent Nos. 6 and 7 which was accompanied by the signatures of 71 members whom they claims to be members of the general body. The question that calls for consideration is as to whether petition/reference can be maintained by two persons accompanied by the signatures of other persons was valid reference or not. Expression used is that one forth of members must initiate proceedings under sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Act in case no reference is made by the Assistant Registrar. The word ‘reference’ has been defined as an act of referring the case to a referee and find facts and submit report to the Courts. The statute provides that one fourth members of society can make reference and the said reference has to be petitioned by such members. They cannot only endorse their signatures which is appended with the petition/reference made by two members as in the present case. The reference has to be moved by all the one fourth members of the society, which is not done in the present case. The petition/reference has not been signed by all the one fourth members of the society. Reference made by two members, is prima facie not maintainable. It is also important to mention here that the prescribed authority while acknowledging the electoral college of 240 members has ignored the fact that the list of members of the general body were required to be certified in accordance with the Sections 4 and 15 of the Act of 1860. Reliance placed on the report of the District Inspector of Schools per-se was perverse and uncalled for. Prescribed authority has overstepped his jurisdiction in relying on the certificate granted by the District Inspector of Schools ignoring the mandatory provision of Sections 4 and 15 of the Act of 1860 which empowers only the Assistant Registrar to certify the electoral list. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the case of Committee Kisan Shiksha Sadan, Banksahi, District Basti and another v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur and another, (1995) 2 UPLBEC 1242, wherein this Court has taken view that Registrar has authority to see that the person is member of the society or not and power of registration is exclusively vested with the Registrar. Relevant extract of the judgement is being quoted below: “This appeal arises out of the order, dated 14.2.1994 dismissing the writ petition No. Nil of 1004. The plea of the second appellant is that he was elected as the Manager of Kisan Shiksha Sadan, Bankasahi, District Basti (hereinafter referred to as the Shiksha Sadan) in January, 1992. This plea was denied by the second respondent herein stating that he was lawfully elected as the Manager of the Shiksha Sadan, and the second appellant was not even a member of the Shiksha Sadan, As the application filed by the second appellant herein was not considered by the Registrar of the societies, he filed a writ petition No. Nil of 1994 seeking a direction to the Registrar to decide his application. This writ petition was disposed of on 10th January, 1994 directing the Registrar to consider the plea of the second appellant herein and pass appropriate orders by giving reasons after considering the objections raised by the second appellant. Accordingly, the Registrar considered the plea of the second appellant in the light of the objections raised by him and passed the appropriate order dated 1.2.1994 holding that the second appellant herein was not even a member of the Shiksha Sadarn. Therefore, he refuse to refer the dispute or doubt relating to the election of the Manager of the Shiksha Sadan. Aggrieved by that order, he filed writ petition No. Nill of 1994, the learned single judge dismissed the writ petitioner holding that the Registrar was competent to pass such an order. Aggrieved by that order, this appeal is preferred. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the Registrar has no power or jurisdiction to decide the question relating to the membership of the second appellant. When he raised a dispute about the election of the Manager of the Shiksha Sadan, he had no other alternative but to refer the doubt or dispute relating to the election of the Manager of the Shiksha Sadan to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (in short’ the Act’). When he raised a dispute about the election of the Manager of the Shiksha Sadan, he had no other alternative but to refer the doubt or dispute relating to the election of the Manager of the Shiksha Sadan to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (in short’ the Act’). On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents that the Registrar may or not refer a dispute or doubt relating to the election of the Manager of a society to the Prescribed Authority for valid reasons and the Registrar is under no obligation to refer any dispute or doubt relating to the election, without applying his mind, to the Prescribed Authority. It is further submitted that the Registrar is under an administrative obligation under Section 4 of the act to maintain a register of members of the managing body for his own administrative purpose. He is under an obligation to record the names of the elected members of the managing body and for that purpose he can be held an enquiry so as to find out who are the elected members of the managing body of a society. On the basis of such enquiry, if the Registrar comes to the conclusion that a person or persons are not even the members of the Society, he will be quite justified in not referring the doubt or dispute as to the election of members of the Managing body of a Society. Having regard to the provisions of the Act, we see force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondents. Section 4 of the Act provides that a list of members of the managing body of a Society shall be filed with the Registrar. That list is maintained by the Registrar for the purpose of performing his administrative functions as a Registrar. Section 25 of the Act provides that whenever any doubt or dispute is raised regarding the election of members of a managing body of a society, the Registrar may refer such doubt or dispute to the Prescribed Authority for his decision. That list is maintained by the Registrar for the purpose of performing his administrative functions as a Registrar. Section 25 of the Act provides that whenever any doubt or dispute is raised regarding the election of members of a managing body of a society, the Registrar may refer such doubt or dispute to the Prescribed Authority for his decision. But when one fourth members of the Society raise a doubt or dispute relating to the election of the members of managing body or Society, the matter automatically goes to the Prescribed Authority for decision and in such a case the Registrar does not come into the picture. In exercising this power whether to refer or not any doubt or dispute relating to the election of members of the managing body of a Society to the Prescribed Authority. The registrar has to apply his mind to the facts of the case and take a decision. In taking such a decision the Registrar will be quite justified to take into account all the relevant circumstances, as he has done in the present case. If an objection is raised about the membership of a person. In our view, it is the duty of the Registrar, for his own administrative purpose, to inquire into whether the person concerned is a member of the Society or not. If the Registrar comes to the conclusion that such a person is not a member of the Society then he is under no obligation to refer the dispute or doubt relating to his election to the Prescribed Authority for decision. In the present case, the Registrar has applied his mind to the facts of the case to find out whether the second appellant herein or was not a member of the Shiksha Sadan. He found that he was not even a member of a Society. It is a pure question of act. If any person feels aggrieved by such a decision, the proper course open to him is to approach the Civil Court and seek appropriate relief. The Registrar is bound by the decision of the Civil Court end his decision will be subject to the decree passed by the Civil Court.” In view of the discussion made above, I hold that the Prescribed Authority was not well within its right to discard the electoral college certified by the Registrar. The Registrar is bound by the decision of the Civil Court end his decision will be subject to the decree passed by the Civil Court.” In view of the discussion made above, I hold that the Prescribed Authority was not well within its right to discard the electoral college certified by the Registrar. Reliance placed by him on electoral college of the respondents based upon certification of DIOS was not in consonance with the law, as the DIOS had no authority to certify such electoral college in case where the dispute relates to a society. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 4.4.2012 passed by Deputy District Magistrate/Shahganj, District Jaunpur is hereby set aside. ——————