JUDGMENT Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. Heard Shri Ram Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State. 2. No one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.3, though he is reported to be sufficiently served. 3. Petitioner no.1 alleges himself to be duly elected member of the Committee of Management of a society known as Chaudhary Ram Aadhar Sant Bux Singh Gramin Shiksha Samiti, Village-Gadha, Post Office-Nagram, District Lucknow, whereas petitioner No.2 alleges himself to be duly elected Manager of the said Society. They, in these proceedings instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have assailed the validity of the order dated 19.05.2012, passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, whereby the list of office bearers of managing body of the society submitted by the respondent no.3 has been accepted by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the Act,1860). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that since the petitioners and various other members of the managing body of the society had disputed the validity of the election allegedly held on 15.06.2010, on the basis of which, the list of members of the managing body of the society was presented by Shri Vinod Kumar-respondent no.3, hence, the impugned order accepting the said list could not have been passed and the matter ought to have been referred for decision before the Prescribed Authority in terms of Section 25 (1) of the Act, 1860. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has attempted to defend the impugned order dated 19.05.2012, passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow Division, Lucknow stating that the impugned order has been passed by giving appropriate opportunity to all concerned including the petitioners. 6. Despite notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.3. 7. On a perusal of the impugned order dated 19.05.2012, the facts which can be deduced and are relevant for deciding the issues involved in this case are that a society in the name and style of "Chaudhary Ram Aadhar Singh Gramin Shiksha Samiti, Village-Gadha, Post Office-Nagram, District Lucknow" was registered on 16.06.1998 with Registration No.666/1998-1999 for a period of five years. The said registration of the Society was renewed on the basis of the papers presented by the then Manager Shri Lala Ram Verma (petitioner no.2 herein) for a further period of five years on 16.07.2003 with effect from 16.06.2003. At that relevant point of time, after the death of the earlier Manager, Shri Ram Verma and that of the Deputy Secretary, Shri Jagdish Prasad, Shri Lala Ram Verma (petitioner no.2 herein) and Shri Deep Prakash Verma were shown to have been elected as manager and Deputy Secretary respectively. 8. It is found from a perusal of the impugned order that on 22.08.2005 petitioner no.2 moved an application for changing the name of the society as Chaudhary Ram Aadhar Santbux Singh Gramin Shiksha Samiti from Choudhary Ram Aadhar Singh Gramin Shiksha Samiti. The application made in this regard by petitioner no.2 was allowed by means of an order dated 31.08.2005, passed by the Deputy Registrar. Accordingly, registration certificate in the changed name of the society was also issued on 16.09.2005 and amended bye-laws were also registered. On 21.06.2008 petitioner no. 2 applied again for renewal of the registration certificate, which was too renewed on 27.06.2008. 9. Thereafter respondent no.3 moved an application on 23.05.2011 based on the alleged election held on 15.06.2010 for acknowledging the members of the elected managing body of the society before the Deputy Registrar. On the said application it appears that certain objections were raised by the office of the Deputy Registrar, on which respondent no.3 appears to have filed certain documents on 20.06.2011. Accordingly, notices were issued on 08.07.2011 to the erstwhile members of the managing body of the society requiring them to file their objections. Responding to the said notices, on 08.07.2011 the petitioner no.2 and various other members submitted their objections under their joint signatures stating therein that the alleged election held on 15.06.2010 was forged and as such on the basis of said election the list of members of the governing body as presented by respondent no.3 be rejected. Various other persons also filed objections to the application made by respondent no.3. The aforesaid facts have been recorded by the Deputy Registrar in the order dated 19.05.2012. Various other persons also filed objections to the application made by respondent no.3. The aforesaid facts have been recorded by the Deputy Registrar in the order dated 19.05.2012. The said facts clearly establish that the petitioners and various other persons had raised a dispute regarding election allegedly held on 15.06.2010, on which reliance was placed by respondent no.3 seeking acceptance of the list of the elected members of the managing body of the society. 10. In such a situation, as per the scheme of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the only option which was available before the Deputy Registrar was to have referred the matter under Section 25 of the Act for decision by the prescribed authority. However, the Deputy Registrar after considering the objections of the petitioners had given certain findings about the functioning of petitioner no.2 as a manager of the society and has also given certain findings which are completely irrelevant for the purposes of accepting or not accepting the list of the members of the governing body of the society presented by respondent no.3. The functions assigned to Deputy Registrar under Section 4 of the Act, 1860, is confined only to accepting the list of the members of the managing body of the society and in the said process if the managing body is elected after the last submission of the list, he is required to obtain the counter signatures of the old members. The proviso appended to Section 4 (1) of the Act, 1860 prescribes that if the old office-bearers do not countersign the list, the Registrar may issue a public notice, or notice to such persons as he thinks fit, inviting objections within a specified period and shall decide all objections received within the said period. 11. The nature of enquiry and jurisdiction as contemplated in Section 4(1) of the Act and the proviso appended to this provision does not confer any jurisdiction or authority on the Deputy Registrar or Registrar to go into the validity and legality of the election if the same is disputed. 12. 11. The nature of enquiry and jurisdiction as contemplated in Section 4(1) of the Act and the proviso appended to this provision does not confer any jurisdiction or authority on the Deputy Registrar or Registrar to go into the validity and legality of the election if the same is disputed. 12. As has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Committee of Management, Anjuman Kherul Almin, Allahganj and another vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in [ (2014) 1 UPLBEC 233 ] in a situation like the one, which had arisen in this case before the Deputy Registrar, he ought to have referred the election dispute to be decided by the prescribed authority under Section 25(1) of the Act, 1860. Para 12 of the said judgment is quoted below: - "In the present case, a list was submitted by the third respondent, of office bearers under Section 4 for 2013-14. The list was objected too. The Deputy Registrar had conflicting claims between the appellants on the one hand and the third respondent on the other hand. Hence when an application for taking on record the names of the officer bearers was filed and an objection to the validity of the elected office bearers was placed before him, the Registrar ought to have referred the dispute to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1). In entertaining the dispute himself and going into merits of the rival claims, the Deputy Registrar has clearly transgressed his jurisdiction. The jurisdiction to decide any doubt or dispute in respect of an election of the office bearers of the Society lies with the Prescribed Authority and the Registrar ought to have made a reference to the Prescribed Authority. " 13. In the instant case, the Deputy Registrar has accepted the list submitted by the respondent no.3 which was based on the alleged election dated 15.06.2010 which was being disputed by the petitioners as well as various other persons. Thus, as to whether the list of the members of the governing body of the society presented by respondent no.3 was a valid list or not depended on the question as to whether the election allegedly held on 15.06.2010 was validly held or not. Thus, as to whether the list of the members of the governing body of the society presented by respondent no.3 was a valid list or not depended on the question as to whether the election allegedly held on 15.06.2010 was validly held or not. In these circumstances, before exercising his authority under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1860 for accepting the list of the valid members of the governing body of the society, it was incumbent upon the Deputy Registrar to have referred the matter to the prescribed authority under Section 25(1) of the Act and after the decision of the prescribed authority he could have taken a decision under Section 4 of the Act. 14. For the reasons given and the discussions made above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 19.05.2012, passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, as is contained in annexure no.1 to the writ petition, is hereby quashed. 16. Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, is, however, directed to make a reference under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 to the prescribed authority within a period of two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 17. Once the prescribed authority receives the reference under Section 25(1) of the Act, he will decide the same within a further period of three months from the date of receipt of the reference. After the decision by the prescribed authority, the Deputy Registrar shall take necessary steps and pass appropriate orders under Section 4 of the Act, 1860, expeditiously. 18. There will be no order as to costs.