JUDGMENT Abhinava Upadhya, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri V.D. Shukla for the respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have come to this Court with the grievance that the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Allahabad has illegally passed an order dated 30.5.2015, by which the list presented by the rival group has been accepted, whereas the dispute raised by the petitioners have not been considered. 3. The petitioners claim itself to be a Committee of Management, M.D. Shiksha Niketan Junior High School Samiti, Village and Post Darchhut Patti, Pratapgarh. The said Committee of Management of the institution is the same as the Committee of Management of the Society. 4. The election of the Society undisputedly was held on 05.12.2011 amongst 11 members. The petitioners claim that Dharmendra Kumar Yadav was elected as President, Jitendra Bahadur Yadav was elected as Manager and Mahadev Yadav happens to be the husband of the Deputy Manager, Gangi Devi. It is submitted that the list of the members and office bearers were submitted before the Registrar and was approved. 5. Shri Jitendra Bahadur Yadav, the Manager who is claimed by the petitioners was appointed as 'Turner' in Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur and was no longer available for the day to day work of the Society and therefore, a resolution was passed by the General Body on 02.4.2014, coopting Gangi Devi as the Manager in place of Jitendra Bahadur Yadav and Shri Jitendra Bahadur Yadav was co-opted as Deputy Manager in place of Gangi Devi. Alongwith the resolution, a list of 15 members was submitted to the Deputy Registrar on 04.4.2014. It is submitted that the duly constituted Committee of Management had inducted four new members in the meantime. 6. The Deputy Registrar sat over the matter and was not taking any action on the papers forwarded on 04.4.2014 which led the petitioners to file a writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition (M/S) No.4600/2014. This Court by its judgment and order dated 11.8.2014 passed the following order. "This writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits to dispose of the representation of the petitioner expeditiously within a period of one month from the date of production/receipt of a certified copy of this order." 7. This Court by its judgment and order dated 11.8.2014 passed the following order. "This writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits to dispose of the representation of the petitioner expeditiously within a period of one month from the date of production/receipt of a certified copy of this order." 7. The Deputy Registrar, pursuant to the aforesaid order proceeded to decide the representation of the petitioners by calling all the interested parties. It appears that Jitendra Bahadur Yadav presented another list of 26 members with different office bearers. In the list although the petitioners are also shown to be members, but different set of office bearers and list of members were presented. The Assistant Registrar by order dated 30.5.2015 has held that such documents submitted by the petitioners were not original whereas the documents submitted by Shri Jitendra Bahadur Yadav were all in original and accepted the claim of Jitendra Bahadur Yadav. 8. Shri Irshad Ali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that first of all the Assistant Registrar has no jurisdiction to decide the question of continuance of office bearers especially when a rival claim has been set up and the appropriate authority would be the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act,1860. 9. Secondly, it is submitted that the Assistant Registrar has gone beyond the pleadings as such the only request that was made to him was consideration of the resolution dated 02.4.2014 by which the Jitendra Bahadur Yadav was removed from the post of Manager and Gangi Devi was co-opted as Manager and the list of 15 members was to be considered, instead the Assistant Registrar has gone on to determine the validity of the list presented by Jitendra Bahadur Yadav and rejected the claim of the petitioners. 10. Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri V.D. Shukla appearing for the respondents submits that the jurisdiction to decide the question by the Deputy Registrar has been given by this Court by the order of this Court dated 11.8.2014 and, therefore, the petitioners cannot raise any objection with regard to the jurisdiction of Deputy Registrar to decide the dispute as the same has been invoked by the petitioners through the order of this Court dated 11.8.2014. 11. 11. Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel further submits that it is not correct to state that the claim of the petitioners have not been considered, whereas from the order impugned itself it is clear that all the documents submitted by the petitioners were not in original, whereas the documents presented by Shri Jitendra Bahadur Yadav were original and the same were believed. 12. It is further submitted that the question of validity of the list can be gone into by the Deputy Registrar under Section 4 of the Act, 1960, and therefore, there is no illegality which may merit any further consideration by this Court. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further relied upon a decision of this Court which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition in the case of Gram Shiksha Sudhar Samiti Junior High School v. Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits U.P. & Ors, passed in Special Appeal No.1089/2010 decided on 13.7.2010. Relying on paragraph 4 of the judgment, it is submitted that it is only the Prescribed Authority who can decide the question of continuance of Office Bearers of the Society and not the Deputy Registrar. 14. Shri Irshad Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that this Court by its order dated 11.8.2014 had merely directed the Deputy Registrar to decided the question with regard to resolution dated 02.4.2014 and after calling the rival groups and if the Deputy Registrar was of the opinion that there was a dispute of Committee of Management or a rival claim has been set up, then it was incumbent upon him to refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority instead of proceeding to decide the matter himself. 15. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents. 16. So far as the claim of the petitioners with regard to the election dated 05.12.2011 is concerned, there does not appear to be a dispute that the election was held on 05.12.2011. However, the list submitted by the petitioners has been disputed by the respondents and the Assistant Registrar has found the list submitted by the respondents to be correct. So far as the claim of the petitioners with regard to the election dated 05.12.2011 is concerned, there does not appear to be a dispute that the election was held on 05.12.2011. However, the list submitted by the petitioners has been disputed by the respondents and the Assistant Registrar has found the list submitted by the respondents to be correct. The question with regard to resolution of the Committee of Management dated 02.4.2014 is concerned by which Shri Jitendra Bahadur Yadav was removed and in his place Gangi Devi was co-opted as Manager has been considered by the Assistant Registrar and has held that the papers set up for the aforesaid purpose do not appear to be genuine as have not been filed in original, whereas the entire list and documents furnished by the respondents were in original and believed the version of the respondents. 17. The question with regard to the validity of the members of the list submitted by the rival group cannot be gone into by this Court as that would mean leading of evidence which can suitably be done either at the level of the authorities or before the Civil Court. If the petitioners are claiming to be office bearers of the Society so are the respondents. Therefore, in the present case, it would be appropriate if the petitioners invoke the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority with regard to the validity of the rival claims. 18. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere at this stage with the order impugned. 19. The writ petition is dismissed. Petition Dismissed.