Judgment Alok Singh, J Learned counsel for the review applicant has handed over copy of judgment dated 18.03.2011 passed by Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 239 of 2010 (Jaipal Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others) today in the Court, which is taken on record. Learned counsel for the review applicant while relying on the judgment in the case of Jaipal Singh (supra) has vehemently argued that as per Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (as applicable in the State of U.P. and State of Uttarakhand), in order to challenge the election of office bearers of a registered society, the Registrar can be moved only when at least one-fourth of the members of Society have, thus, moved. Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act reads as under: “25. Disputes regarding election of office-bearers. – (1) The prescribed authority may, on a reference made to it by the Registrar or by at least one-fourth of the members of a society registered in Uttar Pradesh, hear and decide in a summary manner any doubt or dispute in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office-bearer of such society, and may pass such orders in respect thereof as it deems fit” A plain reading of Section 25 of the Act would reveals that Prescribed Authority, on a reference made to it either by the Registrar or by at least one-fourth of the members of a society registered in Uttar Pradesh / Uttarakhand, may hear and decide in a summary manner any doubt or dispute, in respect of election or continuance in office of an office-bearer of such society. Observations made by Division Bench seem to be contrary to the language of Section 25 of the Act, thus, per incuriam. Although, as per judicial discipline, Single Bench is bound by the judgment rendered by Division Bench, however, if judgment passed by Division Bench seems to be in violation of specific provision of law, then matter should be referred to larger Bench for reconsideration. Let the record be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice to refer the judgment dated 18.03.2011 passed by Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 239 of 2010 to a Division Bench to find out as to whether same should be referred to larger Bench.