Arun Tandon, J. These two writ petitions pertain to the office bearers of a registered Society duly registered in the name and style of Sri Saraswati Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Singh Nagar, Post Jhasi, District Farrukhabad which runs and manages Saraswati Shiksha Sadan, Junior High School. By means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1648 of 2013, the petitioner Jitendra Kumar Mishra in his official capacity as well as in his individual capacity has prayed for quashing of the order dated 17.12.2012 ( Annexure-14 to the writ petition) passed by the Prescribed Authority in exercise of powers under Section 25( 1) of the Societies Registration Act holding therein that the claim set up by the Jitendra Kumar Mishra in respect of election as Manager for the remaining term on 04.10.2009 was without any substance. He has approved the elections pleaded by Vijay Pal Singh ( respondent no. 5) dated 30.09.2009 and has directed the list submitted by Vijay Pal Singh to be registered accordingly. Writ petition No. 7550 of 2013 has been filed by Vijay Pal Singh for a writ of mandamus for restraining the respondent no. 4 i.e. Jitendra Kumar Mishra from working as Manager of the institution. Both these petitions have been being clubbed together and are being decided by means of this common judgment and order. I have heard Shri R.K.Ojha, Advocate on behalf of Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Shri Yogesh Kumar Saxena, Advocate on behalf of the contesting party namely Vijay Pal Singh as well as Standing Counsel in both the petitions. From the records of the present petitions, following facts emerge : Up to the year 2001, Puttu was the lawful manager duly recognized as such of the Society as well as of the institution. At the relevant time Daya Ram was the Deputy Manager. Puttu is stated to have expired on 15.10.2001. After his death two rival claims were set up, one by Daya Ram and the other by Vijay Pal Singh. The matter was examined by the Assistant Registrar and under order dated 23.09.2002, it was held that the claim set up by Vijay Pal Singh was non est while the substitution of Daya Ram in place of Puttu was legal and valid. Daya Ram is stated to have held the elections in the year 2003 and thereafter on 09.05.2006. The matter was examined by the Assistant Registrar and under order dated 23.09.2002, it was held that the claim set up by Vijay Pal Singh was non est while the substitution of Daya Ram in place of Puttu was legal and valid. Daya Ram is stated to have held the elections in the year 2003 and thereafter on 09.05.2006. The elections dated 09.05.2006 are stated to have been recognized with the registration of the list of office bearers under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act. In the said elections, Daya Ram is stated to have been elected as the Manager. Fresh elections are stated to have taken place on 26.06.2009 in which Daya Ram is said to have been elected as the Manager again. It so happened that Daya Ram expired and in his place petitioner, Jitendra Kumar Mishra claims to have been elected as the Manager for remaining term under a resolution dated 04.10.2009. Signatures of Jitendra Kumar Mishra were attested by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari on 24/25-10-2009. It is on the strength of this order that Jitendra Kumar Mishra claims to be working as the Manager of the institution. Shri Vijay Pal Singh however set up an independent election dated 30.09.2009. These elections were granted recognition by the Assistant Registrar vide order dated 07.01.2010. Not being satisfied, Jitendra Kumar Mishra filed a writ petition before this Court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3269 of 2010 which was allowed under an order dated 27.01.2010. The legality of the rival claims was directed to be examined by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25( 1) of the Societies Registration Act afresh. The Prescribed Authority under the order dated 17.12.2012 has disapproved the claim set up by Jitendra Kumar Mishra and has approved the elections pleaded by Vijay Pal Singh. Shri R.K.Ojha on behalf of the petitioner Jitendra Kumar Mishra contends that there has been complete non application of mind at the hands of the Prescribed Authority in accepting the elections set up by Vijay Pal Singh i.e. Vijay Pal Singh was never the lawful Manager of the Society/institution, therefore, he had no competence to hold fresh elections. He further submits that there has been non consideration of the registration of the list of office bearers with reference to the elections held on 09.05.2006. He further submits that there has been non consideration of the registration of the list of office bearers with reference to the elections held on 09.05.2006. According to Jitendra Kumar Mishra, Vijay Pal Singh is not even a primary member of the general body, therefore, he could not have been elected as office bearers. The ground taken for dis-approval of the elections of the petitioner is non est. He was a valid member of the general body. His substitution in place of Daya Ram had been approved by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari which fact has not been given its due weightage and that there is no bar under the bye laws in respect of a teacher of another institution being elected as the Manager. Shri Vijay Pal Singh in his writ petition contends that once the Prescribed Authority under the order dated 17.12.2012 has held that the election of Jitendra Kumar Mishra was illegal, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari was under legal obligation to carry out the said order. Under the order of the Assistant Registrar a finding of fact has been recorded that Jitendra Kumar Mishra is not even a valid member of the general body. From the records, following facts emerge : The elections set up by Vijay Pal Singh which have been recognized under the order impugned could not be shown to be held by the out going office bearers. Vijay Pal Singh was never recognized as the member, therefore, in terms of the bye laws of the Society he had no competence to hold elections which aspect of the matter has been completely ignored. Consequently order of the Prescribed Authority cannot be legally sustained. The Prescribed Authority has further not taken note of the elections held on 09.05.2006, the list whereof was duly registered under Section 4 with Daya Ram as the Manager. The aforesaid reasons the order impugned passed by the Prescribed Authority cannot be legally sustained. So far as the claim set up by Jitendra Kumar Mishra is concerned, this Court finds that the elections dated 26.06.2009 wherein Daya Ram was elected as the Manager were never accepted by the Assistant Registrar and no list of office bearers was ever registered under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act. Consequently, the question of accepting Jitendra Kumar Mishra as the Manager after death of Daya Ram for remaining term did not arise. Consequently, the question of accepting Jitendra Kumar Mishra as the Manager after death of Daya Ram for remaining term did not arise. It is only after the elections dated 26.06.2009 has received approval from the competent authority that the question of any person being substituted as the Manager after death of earlier Manager would arise. As a result whereof the acceptance of Jitendra Kumar Mishra as Manager by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari is rendered null and void. Another issue which has been agitated before this Court with vehemence is with regard to the membership of Jitendra Kumar Mishra. In my opinion, since fresh elections are now to be held under Section 25( 2) of the Societies Registration Act by the Assistant Registrar himself, in view of the findings recorded above, it is desirable that the issue of membership of Jitendra Kumar Mishra and all other member entitled to participate in the elections may be examined at the time of finalization of the electoral college. Therefore, the present writ petitions are disposed of after setting aside the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 17.12.2012 and the order of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari dated 24/25-10.2009 being declared null and void with following further directions : ( i) The Assistant Registrar shall hold fresh elections of the office bearers of the Society under Section 25( 2) of the Societies Registration Act. ( ii) He shall publish a tentative list of members which may be supplied by both the parties namely Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Vijay Pal Singh to the Assistant Registrar along with a certified copy of this order, within two weeks from today. ( iii) The tentative list shall include name of persons mentioned in both the list. ( iv) The parties are at liberty to file their respective objections to the said tentative list, supported by such document as they may be advised. Any other person interested in the elections is also at liberty to file his objections. These objections may be filed within two weeks from the publication of the tentative list. ( v) The Assistant Registrar shall determine the electoral college after deciding the objections raised by means of a reasoned speaking order and shall hold fresh elections of the office bearers from the electoral college so determined. This exercise shall be complete within four weeks of the receipt of the objections. ( v) The Assistant Registrar shall determine the electoral college after deciding the objections raised by means of a reasoned speaking order and shall hold fresh elections of the office bearers from the electoral college so determined. This exercise shall be complete within four weeks of the receipt of the objections. ( vi) The elected office bearers shall be handed over charge of the Society as well as of the institution. ( vii) Any person aggrieved by the determination of the electoral college will be at liberty to seek his remedy in accordance with the provisions of the Societies Registration Act or by way of civil suit after the elections are over. ( viii) Till the fresh elections are held, as indicated above, there shall be single operation of accounts in the institution.