Dilip Gupta, J.— Writ Petition No.9773 of 2006 has been filed by the Committee of Management of Sarvodaya Shiksha Samiti, Pipar Gaon, Committee of Management of Sarvodaya Inter College, Pipar Gaon, Farrukhabad and Sri Rakesh Chandra Dixit claiming himself to'be the Manager of the aforesaid Committee of Managements for quashing the order dated 12th January, 2006 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Deputy Registrar') by which the Committee of Management of the Society constituted on 9th October, 2005 with respondent no.7-Vimal Chandra Tiwari as the President was approved. 2. Writ Petition No.67673 of 2010 has been filed by Sarvodaya Shiksha Samiti, Pipar Gaon and Anil Kumar claiming himself to be the Manager of the Committee of Management of the Society for quashing the order dated 20th October, 2010 passed by the Deputy Registrar by which the Committee of Management of the Society constituted on 21st December, 2008 with Rakesh Chandra Dixit as the Manager has been approved. 3. In Writ Petition No.9773 of 2006, it is asserted that the Deputy Registrar decided the claims set up by the rival Committee of Management of the Society. The petitioners asserted that the elections were held on 22nd August, 2004 while the respondents asserted that the elections were held on 9th October, 2005. The Deputy Registrar accepted the election of the respondent-Committee of Management of the Society held on 9th October, 2005. 4. Sri G.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the order passed by the Deputy Registrar deserves to be set aside for the reason that the Deputy Registrar could not have decided the rival claims and the dispute was required to be referred to the Prescribed Authority and that even otherwise no reasons have been assigned in the impugned order for approving the election of the respondent-Committee of Management of the Society. 5. Sri R.K. Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has, however, submitted that the Deputy Registrar had examined the documents placed before him and thereafter a finding was given in favour of the respondent-Committee of Management. It is his contention that this order does not call for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. 5. Sri R.K. Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has, however, submitted that the Deputy Registrar had examined the documents placed before him and thereafter a finding was given in favour of the respondent-Committee of Management. It is his contention that this order does not call for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the order dated 12th January, 2006 passed by the Deputy Registrar. 7. It is seen that the Deputy Registrar has approved the election of the respondent-Committee of Management without examining the rival claims and without giving any reason. It is, therefore, not possible to sustain the order dated 12th January, 2006 passed by the Deputy Registrar. 8. Learned counsel for the parties are, however, agreed that instead of remanding the matter back to the Deputy Registrar, the Prescribed Authority may be directed to decide the dispute under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act. 9. In view of the said agreement and in view of the fact that the Deputy Registrar should have, in the facts and circumstances of the case, referred the dispute to the Prescribed Authority, the matter is referred to the Prescribed Authority with a direction to examine the rival claims of the parties and decide the dispute by a reasoned and speaking order expeditiously. The order dated 12th January, 2006 passed by the Deputy Registrar is, accordingly, set aside. 10. The contention of Sri R.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.67673 of 2010 for assailing the order dated 20th October, 2010 is that the Deputy Registrar failed to appreciate that last elections of the Committee of Management of the Society held on 9th October, 2005 in which the petitioner-Committee of Management was elected had been approved and the elections held by the respondent-Committee of Management on 22nd August, 2004 were not accepted by the Deputy Registrar. It is his submission that the Deputy Registrar has in effect reviewed the earlier order dated 12th January, 2006 by holding that the election held on 22nd August, 2004 was valid and the election held on October, 2005 was not valid and it is by treating the election held on 22nd August, 2004 as valid that the Deputy Registrar proceeded to approve to subsequent elections. 11. 11. Sri G.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent' Committee of Management of the Society, however, submitted that there is no infirmity in the order dated 20th October, 2010 passed by the Deputy Registrar. It is his submission that that the earlier order passed by tin Deputy Registrar in favour of the petitioner-Committee of Management was void ab initio and could be ignored. 12. As the decision taken by the Deputy Registrar on 12th January, 2006 has been set aside by the Court, the order dated 20th October, 2018 also deserves to be set aside. 13. Learned counsel for the parties are also agreed that this matter may also be referred to the Prescribed Authority. The order dated 201 October, 2010 is, accordingly, set aside and the matter is referred to the Prescribed Authority to examine the rival claims of the parties and decide the dispute by a reasoned and speaking order expeditiously. 14. Sri R.K. Ojha and Sri G.K. Singh, learned counsel have also stated that the parties claim that fresh elections of the Committee o Management of the Society were also held on 11th September, 2011 and 21st December, 2011 respectively and as the Deputy Registrar has no taken any decision on the said elections, the Prescribed Authority may also examine the dispute. 15. It is, therefore, ordered that the Prescribed Authority may also examine this dispute with respect to the elections of the Committee o Management of the Society and pass a reasoned order. 16. The writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed with the aforesaid observations. _____________