JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Heard counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for respondents no.1, 2 & 3 and Sri Dinesh Kumar Tiwari for respondents no.4 and 5. With their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of finally without inviting a formal counter affidavit. 2. Junior High School, Digharua, Fatehpur is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is running a Junior High School. Dispute relating to the committee of management of the society was referred to the Prescribed Authority by an order dated 31.3.2000. The Assistant Registrar, while referring the dispute to the Prescribed Authority, noted that before him Mewa Lal Shukla claiming himself to be Manager had set up election proceedings dated 21.12.1997, whereas on the other hand, Gaya Prasad also claimed himself to be elected as Manager on the basis of election held on 15.12.1997. It seems that the matter remained pending and in the meantime, both the rival groups claim to have held elections at regular interval of three years. They also made separate applications for renewal of the registration of the society. On 26.2.2014 the Assistant Registrar, noticing that two rival set of elections were set up since the year 1997, again made a reference to the Prescribed Authority to decide the dispute. While making such request, the Assistant Registrar specifically noted in the order that both rival claimants on the post of Manager namely Gaya Prasad and Mewa Lal Shukla had died in the meantime. In their place the second petitioner Gyanendra Singh and the fifth respondent Hari Narayan Dubey are claiming themselves to have been co-opted as Manager. They have made separate applications for renewal of the registration certificate. By impugned order dated 22.3.2016, the Prescribed Authority has decided the dispute holding that election dated 21.12.1997 set up by Mewa Lal Shukla appears to have been validly held and accordingly, directed the Assistant Registrar to grant renewal certificate on the basis of the documents submitted by the fifth respondent, who claimed to be co-opted in his place after his death in the year 2013 and a further direction has been issued for registration of the list of office bearers, in which the fifth respondent is the Manager. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have preferred the instant writ petition. 3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have preferred the instant writ petition. 3. The main ground of attack is that the Prescribed Authority in the impugned order has not decided the actual lis between the parties. It is urged that even in relation to election allegedly held in the year 1997 by Mewa Lal Shukla, there is absolutely no consideration as to how the said election was validly conducted. It is further submitted that after 1997, elections had been held at regular interval of three years and in this regard, specific plea was raised by both the parties before the Prescribed Authority but yet there is absolutely no consideration of the subsequent elections by the Prescribed Authority. It is further submitted that the claim of the fifth respondent is based on alleged co-option proceedings dated 15.12.2013, which according to the petitioners, were never held, as on that date the meeting was convened only for extending the condolence to Mewa Lal Shukla, who had died on 15.11.2013. The validity of the alleged co-option of the fifth respondent has not been decided and thus, the direction issued by the Prescribed Authority for registering the list of office bearers as supplied by the fifth respondent is manifestly illegal. 4. Sri Dinesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no.4 and 5 initially tried to support the impugned order but after some argument very fairly conceded that in the impugned order there is no consideration of these issues. He, therefore, very fairly suggested that the matter be remitted back to the Prescribed Authority for decision afresh. 5. Accordingly and in view of the aforesaid statement of learned counsel for respondents no.4 and 5, the impugned order dated 22.3.2016 is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the Prescribed Authority for decision afresh on the validity of the election proceedings of the year 1997 as well as of all subsequent election proceedings including the co-option proceedings, in accordance with law, expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him by any of the parties. 6. 6. Any action taken in pursuance of the impugned order shall be treated to be null and void and shall be ignored, except the proceedings in relation to renewal of the registration, as it ensures to the benefit of the society and not to any individual.