Hon'ble Shri Narayan Shukla,J. Heard Mr. H.G.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Chief Standing Counsel for opposite party No.1, Mr. M.B.Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and Mr. Mahendra Singh Rathore, learned Advocate, who has put in appearance for opposite party No.4 by filing Vakalatnama, which is taken on record. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.1.2012 (Annexure No.1) as also the order dated 02.3.2012 (Annexure No.2) passed by the Deputy Registrar Firm Society and Chits, Faizabad Division, Faizabad (In short, Deputy Registrar). 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by means of order impugned the Deputy Registrar has annulled the election of the Committee of Management of Society held on 09.1.2012 in exercise of power provided under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (In short Act). It is stated that the Deputy Registrar is not vested with the jurisdiction to examine the validity of election as the same is vested with the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Act. Further the finding of Deputy Registrar to the effect that President of the Society was not present in the meeting held in 09.1.2011 is absolutely incorrect. He has brought on record several affidavits of the members of the Society who have certified the presence of the President of the Society i.e. opposite party No.4 in the meeting of the Society held on 09.1.2011. It is further stated that he was very much present in the mid of meeting he left away. It is further submitted that he has not taken care of the members who have been inducted after the last election and arbitrarily has issued direction to hold election on the basis of the list of members available on the date of last election held on 17.1.2006. 4. It is further submitted that he has not taken care of the members who have been inducted after the last election and arbitrarily has issued direction to hold election on the basis of the list of members available on the date of last election held on 17.1.2006. 4. In support of his submission, he cited the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Committee of Management Vs State of U.P. and others (2011) 4 UPLBEC 2826 and submitted that in identical facts this Court has held that since Assistant Registrar has not only held the proceeding of election to be invalid but has directed for taking action by declaring the election and constitution of fresh committee, in such a situation the order passed by the Assistant Registrar cannot be sustained as it is covered to be decided under Section 25 (1) of the Act by the Prescribed Authority. 5. He further placed reliance upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the Case of Gram Shiksha Sudhar Samiti, Junior High School, Sikandra, District Kanpur Dehat and another Vs Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, U.P. Lucknow and others reported in 2010(7) ADJ 643 (DB) and submitted that the present case is completely covered with the said judgment. The facts of the said case are that the Registrar, in exercise of power provided under Section 4 of the Act, issued notice to the respondent who filed an objection on various grounds disputing claim made by the appellant that they were duly elected Office Bearers. Registrar enquired into the claim and held that the list submitted by the appellants could not be accepted as he found that the election is fake. 6. The Registrar also recorded finding that respondent no.3 was dully elected President of the Committee. The Division Bench posed the question for decision as to " whether the Registrar under the proviso to Section 4 of the Act could have proceeded to decide the controversy pertaining to the election of Office Bearers. It also referred another decision of a case of All India Council and Another Vs Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Varanasi Region, Varanasi and another, AIR 1988 All 236 . The relevant paragraph 7 of it is reproduced herein under;- "7. It also referred another decision of a case of All India Council and Another Vs Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Varanasi Region, Varanasi and another, AIR 1988 All 236 . The relevant paragraph 7 of it is reproduced herein under;- "7. It will, therefore, be seen that insofar as disputes or doubts in respect of the election or continuance in office of the office-bearers of a society registered in Uttar Pradesh are concerned, the Legislature has created a specific forum and laid down an exhaustive procedure for determination of the same under S.25. There is no other provision, express or otherwise, providing for determination of such disputes specifically. It is settled law that where, as here, the Legislature creates a specific forum and lays an exhaustive procedure for determination of a particular class of disputes in respect of matters covered by the stature, such disputes can be determined only in that forum and in the manner prescribed thereunder and not otherwise. If, therefore, a dispute is raised with regard to the election or continuance in office of an office-bearer of a society registered in Uttar Pradesh, the same has to be decided only by the Prescribed Authority under S. 25 (1) and not by the Registrar, save, of course, to the decision of the Prescribed Authority being subject to the result of a civil suit." 6. In light of the aforesaid decision, the Division Bench concluded that what can be gone into under Section 25 of the Act cannot be gone into under the proviso of Section 4 of the Act and further held that the moment on application for taking on record the names of office bearers and an objection is to the validity or otherwise of the office bearers who are dully elected have been filed, the Registrar considering Section 25 (1) of the Act ought to have been referred the mater to the Prescribed Authority under the said provision. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Registrar, therefore, is without jurisdiction and thus set aside the order. In support of his submission he cited one more judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, 2006(24) LCD 1373. Thus he submits that the orders impugned are unsustainable and those deserves to be quashed. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Registrar, therefore, is without jurisdiction and thus set aside the order. In support of his submission he cited one more judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, 2006(24) LCD 1373. Thus he submits that the orders impugned are unsustainable and those deserves to be quashed. 7. In reply the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the dispute before the Registrar reached for renewal of the Society along with the name of new Office Bearers of the Society posing therein that on 09.1.2011, election of the Office Bearers took place and they have been elected as such. However, minutes of the meeting dated 09.1.2011 itself indicate that the president of the Society i.e. opposite party No.5 was not present therein, no agenda for holding the said meeting was published or intimated to the members. Further, two different proceedings have been shown to have taken place on 09.1.2011 but in order to establish the said proceeding, the petitioners have not brought on record any agenda for the said meeting. The Minutes of meeting also does not indicate the strength of the members present in the meeting. 8. So far as affidavits of members with regard to presence of respondent No.5 in the meeting is concerned, those are after thought as the Deputy Registrar took decision on 17.1.2012, whereas they all have submitted the affidavit on 20.1.2012 just to support the application for recall of order. It is stated that if it was so these affidavits could have been placed before the Deputy Registrar at first hand itself. It has further been submitted that the induction of new members who are eight in number had never been intimated to Deputy Registrar to register them as members rather they have been shown to have been allowed to participate in the meeting. Thus it is stated that the question of validity of list of members, who have been allowed to participate in the meeting, was before the Registrar for examination before renewal of the Society, which has been examined by the Deputy Registrar as he is vested with the power under Section 4 of the Act to examine validity of the membership. Thus it is stated that the question of validity of list of members, who have been allowed to participate in the meeting, was before the Registrar for examination before renewal of the Society, which has been examined by the Deputy Registrar as he is vested with the power under Section 4 of the Act to examine validity of the membership. Since resolution of the Society held on 09.1.2011 itself have been found as no resolution in the eye of law, there was no occasion with Deputy Registrar to recognize the election of the Office Bearers allegedly held in the said meeting. It is further stated that in any manner the dispute before the Registrar was not the dispute of election but the dispute related to the membership of the General Body of the Society, therefore, the decision as cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners are in no help of the petitioners. 9. In order to decide the controversy, it is pertinent to reproduce the provision of Section 4 of the Act as under:- "4. Annual list of managing body to be filed.- Once in every year, on or before the fourteenth day succeeding the day on which, according to the rules of the society, the annual general meeting of the society is held, or, if the rules do not provide for an annual general meeting, in the month of January, a list shall be filed with the Registrar of Joint-stock Companies, of the names, addresses and occupations of the governors, council, directors, committee, or other governing body then entrusted with the management of the affairs of the society." As is evident from the aforesaid provision, it is provided that once in a year a list of the names, address, and occupation of the Governor, Counsels, Directors and other governing body then interested with management of the affairs of the Society shall be filed with the Registrar. It is further provided that on the event of the election of the managing body, the counter signature of the old members who are enlisted in the list available with the Registrar shall be obtained on the list before its submission to the Registrar. If the old Office Bearers do not counter signed the list, the Registrar may in his discretion after inviting the objection shall take decision with respect to the list of the members. 10. If the old Office Bearers do not counter signed the list, the Registrar may in his discretion after inviting the objection shall take decision with respect to the list of the members. 10. Upon perusal of the facts of the case, I find that the Minutes of the meeting dated 09.1.2011, whereby a new election has been shown to have taken place is not counter signed by the President of the Society. Further some of the members who participated in the meeting are not in the list of members available with the Registrar. Therefore, the Registrar was not under obligation to recognize the said election as under Section 4 of the Act itself, he is empowered to take decision in the matter. The order impugned indicates that the Deputy Registrar, in taking decision, has confined himself to examine the validity of resolution dated 09.1.2011, therefore, it cannot be said that he entered into the dispute of election. 11. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that once the dispute is not a dispute of election of the Office Bearers of the Society, the facts of the present case being different are distinguishable to the facts dealt with by the Hon'ble Single Judge as well as Division Bench of this Court referred to herein-above. 12. Thus I do not find error in the orders impugned. In the result the writ petition is dismissed. _