JUDGMENT Abhinava Upadhya, J. – Heard Sri Radha Kant Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri P.N. Saxena, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.4 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. 2. There is a society known as Patel Memorial Junior Higher School, Patel Nagar (Bhatahat), District Gorakhpur. The said society is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the said society was registered on 4.6.1959 having its registration no. 87/1959-60/-.The society has also established a college known as Patel Smarak Inter College, Patel Nagar, Bhatahat, Gorakhpur. The said institution is established under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and for running the Committee of Management of the college there is also Scheme of Administration duly approved by the authority. 3. By means of this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the order of the Assistant Registrar dated 1.7.2015, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, by which it has discarded the claim of the rival groups with regard to election of the Society stated to have been held in 2010 by one group and 2011 by another. 4. The Assistant Registrar has gone on further to state that the last valid election of the society was held in 2004 and relying upon the bye laws of the society the term of the Managing Committee of the Society is three years and, therefore, it has been held that after expiry of three years, the term of the Committee came to an end and directed that a fresh election be conducted by the D.I.O.S. 5. The Assistant Registrar has determined the electoral college of the society to be of 251 members which was presented to it on 23.1.2008 under the joint signature of petitioner no. 2 and respondent no. 4. In the last undisputed election of 2004 the petitioner no.2 was the President of the Managing Committee and respondent no. 4 was the Secretary/Manager. 6. The grievance raised by the petitioners and the reasons for assailing the order of the Assistant Registrar is with regard to his determination of electoral college of 251 members after inclusion of 54 new members. 7. According to Sri R.K. Ojha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, original number of members of the General Body of the Society were 198. Thereafter, 54 members were inducted in the year 2006. 7. According to Sri R.K. Ojha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, original number of members of the General Body of the Society were 198. Thereafter, 54 members were inducted in the year 2006. The objection is with regard to these 54 members on the ground of power to induct members vests with the Managing Committee of the Society, which consists of 31 members and according to the proceedings for induction of 54 new members, it has been done by a 'Managing Council' which is the nomenclature given to the Committee of Management of the College, consisting of 17 Members. It is further submitted that these 17 members are in fact members of the Committee of Management of the College, which society runs and is not the Managing Committee of the Society and, therefore, induction of 54 members is incorrect, illegal and the determination by the Assistant Registrar to hold election including these 54 members are against the bye laws. 8. Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent no.4 submits that the last election of the working committee of the Society was held in 2004. This fact is undisputed between the parties. The said election was held from the electoral college of 198 members. The 54 new members that are stated to be inducted were during the period when the term of the valid Committee of Management was continuing. It is further submitted that the induction of 54 members, the petitioner no.2 was also a signatory and the papers to that effect were also signed by all the members and they continued as such and at this stage the petitioner no.2, who was the President of the Society at the relevant point of time cannot turn around and say that induction of those 54 members was wrong. 9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the order of the Deputy Registrar. 10. At this juncture, it is to be noted that both the rival groups had claimed for conducting the election of the Managing Committing of the Society in 2010 and by other group on 2011. 10. At this juncture, it is to be noted that both the rival groups had claimed for conducting the election of the Managing Committing of the Society in 2010 and by other group on 2011. The Assistant Registrar by the impugned order had rejected both these claims and has come to the conclusion that the term of the Managing Committee of the Society expired after 2007 as the last undisputed election was held in 2004 and the term of the Managing Committee being three years, it has gone on to hold that it would be appropriate to hold election under the supervision of the D.I.O.S. 11. So far as the dispute raised by the petitioners with regard to the electoral college is concerned, I am not inclined to interfere with that as the Deputy Registrar has held that electoral college to be 251 members after induction of 54 members by the erstwhile Managing Committee in 2006 of which the petitioner no.2 was also the President. If the petitioners have any grievance with the aforesaid factual dispute with regard to induction of 54 members, the petitioners are liberty to approach the Civil Court for the redressal of its grievance. It is further to be noted that even after the election are held the petitioners still have remedy of challenging the same before the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. 12. Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate then submits that the induction of 54 members was done by a body not competent to induct, that is to say, that under the bye laws the induction of members can only be done by the Managing Committee consisting of 31 members and admittedly the Committee which has inducted these 54 members is consisting of 17 members, two of which are the teachers of the institution and, therefore, the committee, which has inducted members, is in fact the Committee of Management of the Institution and not of the society. 13. I am unable to accept the aforesaid contention of the learned Senior Advocate Sri R.K. Ojha, inasmuch as, 54 members were inducted way back in the year 2006. It is also to be noted that in paragraph 9 of the writ petition it is stated that the Managing Committee of the society and the Committee of Management of the institution is one and the same. It is also to be noted that in paragraph 9 of the writ petition it is stated that the Managing Committee of the society and the Committee of Management of the institution is one and the same. That being the case, the induction of 54 members cannot be faulted especially as it has not been shown anywhere nor argued that in past the members of both the committees acted separately or distinctly. 14. From the order it appears that the Assistant Registrar has noted this aspect of the matter and has held that the petitioner no.2 and respondent no. 4 themselves have signed those documents of induction of 54 members. As such, I have no reason to hold otherwise upon the materials relied upon by the Assistant Registrar. So far the claim of the petitioners that the signatures are forged, this question cannot be gone into by this Court. 15. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.