ORDER A.S. Bopanna, J. 1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 19-1-2012 (Annexure-M) and the consequential order dated 6-2-2012 (Annexure-U) to the petition. The petitioner has also sought for quashing the newly enrolled membership list dated 24-8-2011 done by the Administrator. A further direction has been sought to direct respondent 8 to accept the audited balance sheet along with the list of governing Council details submitted by the petitioner as at Annexure-T to the petition. The petitioner contends that it is a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 for imparting education in rural areas. The petitioner herein claims to be the body in control of the educational institutions and therefore contends that the private respondents herein have no manner of right to represent the society. In that regard, the petitioner had approached the Registrar contending that the returns being filed by the respondents claiming themselves as the Managing Committee of the Society should not be accepted. It is in that circumstance, the petitioner is claiming to be aggrieved by the acceptance of the letter dated 19-1-2012 as at Annexure-M. Consequently, in view of the objection filed by the petitioner on 30-1-2012 and since it is clarified to the petitioner by endorsement dated 6-2-2012 (Annexure-U), the petitioner is also aggrieved by the same. 2. Firstly, in the instant petition, the question that would arise for consideration is only with regard to the present action relating to acceptance of the returns filed by the Registrar and also the endorsement that has been issued to the petitioner and as to whether the same are justified or not? 3. The perusal of the endorsement dated 6-2-2012 would indicate that an Administrator had been appointed to the said Society and the Administrator has thereafter held the elections and the elected body which is presently in control of affairs of the Society has filed the returns, which has been accepted by the Registrar. If the said recital in the endorsement is kept in view and the other documents which are produced along with the petition are perused, it cannot be in dispute that at an earlier point in time, an Administrator had been appointed to the Society and the said action had attained finality. It is in that circumstance, the Administrator has subsequently held the elections. It is in that circumstance, the Administrator has subsequently held the elections. The elections is also said to have been questioned by some of the members in the writ petition but the same had not been prosecuted further. 4. Be that as it may, when the Administrator had held the elections as permitted earlier and the elected body has presently filed the returns, certainly, the Registrar would have to accept the returns and the acceptance letter dated 19-1-2012 issued in that regard would be justified. Further, the endorsement having disclosed the reasons for acceptance of the returns filed by the elected body cannot be considered to be erroneous in law. However, if the petitioners have any other grievance with regard to the manner in which the elections had been conducted by the Administrator or the enrolment of the members, the same cannot be made a part of the grievance in the instant petition but can only be assailed by the concerned members of the Society in accordance with law in an appropriate forum. Therefore, at this juncture, the other prayers made in the petition would not arise for consideration. Hence, the consideration in the instant petition has been limited only to the correctness or otherwise of the endorsement which has been issued which clearly depicts the factual position existing as of now, but if the petitioner has any other grievance, it can only be assailed in accordance with law. Therefore, reserving the said liberty, the petition stands disposed of.