JUDGMENT Ritu Raj Awasthi,J. Short counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party no. 2 filed today in Court is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. 3. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of writ petition on the ground that there is no resolution of the Committee of Management authorizing petitioner to challenge the impugned order, as such, the writ petition is not maintainable. 4. On the basis of instructions, it is further submitted by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that there is no dispute to the election held on 21.8.2010 wherein the petitioner no. 2 was said to be elected as Manager and opposite party no. 2 as President, however, subsequently the petitioner no. 2 had resigned from the post of Manager and his resignation was duly accepted by the Committee of Management in the meeting dated 11.9.2012 and vide resolution dated 18.9.2012 list of office bearers for 2012-13 was sent to the Deputy Registrar which contain the name of one Sunder Lal as Manager who was earlier elected as Deputy Manager in the election held on 21.8.2010. The Deputy Registrar has accepted the said list of office bearers for the year 2012-13. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner no. 2 had categorically denied the resignation as alleged by the opposite party no. 2, as such, there arose a dispute with respect to continuation of an office bearer of the Society and, as such, it was required to be referred to the Prescribed Authority for adjudication under Section 21 (1) of Societies Registration Act. 6. In support of his submission, learned counsel for petitioner relies on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Maha Narayan Pandey and others Vs. Registrar, Chit Funds, Firms & Societies, U.P. Lucknow and others; [1984 UPLBEC 550], particularly paragraphs 7 & 9 which on reproduction read as under: "7. In his impugned order the Registrar formulated the points requiring his determination as follows: - (1) Removal of Mewa Ram Tewari and Bharat Singh from the membership of the Society. (2) Resignation of Maha Narayan Pandey from the office of Manager. (3) Amendment in Smriti Patra and Niyamawali. (4) List of new office bearers of the Society. 9. In his impugned order the Registrar formulated the points requiring his determination as follows: - (1) Removal of Mewa Ram Tewari and Bharat Singh from the membership of the Society. (2) Resignation of Maha Narayan Pandey from the office of Manager. (3) Amendment in Smriti Patra and Niyamawali. (4) List of new office bearers of the Society. 9. In respect of the amendment of Smriti Patra and Niyamawali the Registrar held that the Basic Education Department had been requiring the petitioner No. 1 to amend the said documents so as to bring them in conformity with law, but petitioner No. 1 was not taking any steps in that behalf. The Registrar further held that the amendment now made in the Smriti Patra and Niyamawali are in accordance with the requirement of law and they are, therefore, valid. The question of amendment of Smriti Patra and Niyamawai is not mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 25 reproduced above. Obviously this question was not one which was required to be decided by the Prescribed Authority. However, point Nos. 2 and 3 are clearly covered by the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 25. Annexure No. 1-A shows that Bharat Singh was Agriculture Secretary. He was, thus, an office bearer of the Society. Implicit in his alleged removal from the membership of the Society was his removal from the office of the Agriculture Secretary. Therefore, one of the questions that arose and which has been decided by the Registrar was whether Bharat Singh could continue to hold office of the Agriculture Secretary. In view of the finding recorded by the Registrar, Bharat Singh continues to hold that office. Again there was dispute as to whether petitioner No. 1 continue to hold office of the Manager or the said office had devolved upon opposite party No. 2 on the basis of the alleged nomination made by petitioner No. 1. This dispute became necessary to be decided in view of the new list of the office bearers submitted to the Registrar by opposite party No. 2. The new list could be accepted or rejected only after recording finding on the disputed question mentioned hereinbefore. In other words, point No. 4 formulated by the Registrar required determination of the question whether petitioner No. 1 continued to hold office of the Manager or he ceased to hold that office. The new list could be accepted or rejected only after recording finding on the disputed question mentioned hereinbefore. In other words, point No. 4 formulated by the Registrar required determination of the question whether petitioner No. 1 continued to hold office of the Manager or he ceased to hold that office. this question was clearly covered by sub-section (1) of Section 25. The Registrar, of course, held that it was not necessary to decide the question of resignation, but if he had entered into the factual controversy raised in this regard by the parties it would have involved determination of the question whether petitioner No. 1 continued to hold office of the Manager or ceased to hold the office by resigning from the office and nominating opposite party No. 2 as his successor. This question was also necessary to be decided as even after amendment of the Rules, Petitioner No. 1 would continue to hold the office till fresh elections took place, unless he resigned. In view of the discussion herein the Registrar proceeded to decide ta part of the dispute which did not fall within his jurisdiction. Reference under sub-section (1) of Section 25 could be made by one-fourth of the members of the Society as well as by the Registrar. In the present case no reference was made to the Prescribed Authority by the members of the Society. But once it came to the notice of the Registrar that a dispute which could be decided by the Prescribed Authority alone had arisen between the parties, he should have referred the matter to the Prescribed Authority instead of assuming jurisdiction in himself to decide the said dispute." 7. Before deciding the controversy involved in the writ petition, it would be appropriate to decide the maintainability of writ petition. 8. Learned counsel for petitioner admits that no resolution has been passed in favour of the Society or its Manager, Shankar Lal Yadav to challenge the impugned order. 9. The Deputy Registrar vide impugned order has accepted the list of office bearers of the Committee of Management for the year 2012-13 wherein one Sunder Lal has been shown as Manager of the Committee of the Management of the Society. 10. 9. The Deputy Registrar vide impugned order has accepted the list of office bearers of the Committee of Management for the year 2012-13 wherein one Sunder Lal has been shown as Manager of the Committee of the Management of the Society. 10. I am of the view that in absence of a resolution authorizing the Society through its Manager or Shankar Lal Yadav in his individual capacity, the writ petition as such is not maintainable. 11. It is to be noted that Shankar Lal Yadav does not have any independent right to challenge the impugned order. 12. It is to be observed that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Umesh Chandra and another Vs. Mahila Vidyalaya Society, Aminabad, Lucknow and others; [ 2006 (24) LCD 1373 ] has observed that the writ petition filed by the Manager on behalf of the society was not maintainable unless he was authorized to file the same. The view of the Court is that in absence of any resolution the writ petition by the Manager for that purpose or by any other person on behalf of the committee of management is not maintainable. 13. The relevant paragraph 34 on reproduction reads as under: "34. The Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in a case reported in AIR (38) 1951 Allahabad 1, Indian Sugar Mills Association through its President Shri Hari Rai Swarup V. Secretary to Government, Uttar Pradesh Labour Department and others, held that writ petition under Article 226 may be maintainable on behalf of Association through a person only in case it is proved that the Association had right to move a writ petition on behalf of a person who preferred the writ petition. For convenience relevant portion from the Full Bench judgment of Indian Sugar Mills Association is reproduced as under: "It has been urged by learned counsel for the applicant that, though the amount may not be payable out of the property of the Association, yet inasmuch as the payments have to be made out of the funds of the Sugar Mills, a large number of which are members of the Association, the Association has the right to move the application on their behalf. We have already said that it is the interest of the applicant which must be directly affected by the statute or the order complained against and the applicant cannot claim that its interests are directly affected." 14. The Full Bench judgment of this Court referred hereinabove has been relied upon in a case reported in (2002) 3 UPLBEC 2777 , Saraswati Vidya Mandir, Rewatipur, Ghazipur through its Manager Smt. Ram Rakhi Devi V. State of U.P. and others, where writ petition filed on behalf of Society was dismissed this Court on teh ground that petition filed by the Manager on behalf of Managing Committee or Society was not maintainable unless he was authorized to file the same. Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court had relied upon the earlier unreported judgment of this Court. 15. Relevant portion from the judgment of Sarswati Vidya Mandir (supra) is reproduced as under: "Mahtab Rai, Manager, Har Narain Intermediate College V. Deputy Director of Education (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5808 of 1970 decided on 7th January, 1974) a learned Single Judge of this Court, almost in similar circumstances, held that the Manager or the School has no locus standi to maintain petition against the order of the District Inspector of Schools or the Deputy Director of Education refusing to grant approval. The learned Single Jude observed that the appointment of Principal of College and termination of his services were within the power of the Managing Committee or the Society and it was the Managing Committee alone which exercises control. That being so, the Manager is not the Managing Committee or the Society and he cannot maintain a writ petition in this Court unless he is authorized to do so. Relying on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Hari Rai Swarup V. Secretary to Government of U.P., AIR 1951 Allahabad 1, the learned Judge dismissed the petition on the ground that it was filed on behalf of the Managing Committee or the Society." 16. Reliance placed by Shir Raghvendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Shanti Sarup seems to be misconceived. Reliance placed by Shir Raghvendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Shanti Sarup seems to be misconceived. In the case of Shanti Sarup as to whether the Secretary can institute a suit on behalf of Society in the absence of any specific delegation of power by the Rules of the Society or by the resolution of the governing body. Accordingly the case of Shanti Sarup does not seem to be applicable under the facts and circumstances of the present case. 17. In the case of Sardar Patel Higher Secondary School, Deve Nagar, Mathura (supra) again Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall not be maintainable by the Manager of Institution. Only the Managing Committee or Society can maintain a writ petition. The Manager can not assume the function of Committee of Management unless he is authorized to do so. 18. In the case of Arya Samaj Ganesh Ganj (supra) a Division Bench of this Court had held that in the event of dissolution of Society, Secretary or Manager have got no right to file a suit in view of provision contained in Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act." In view of above, the writ petition is dismissed. 19. Since the writ petition has been dismissed on the ground of maintainability, as such, there is no need to adjudicate the controversy involved in the writ petition.