JUDGMENT Suneet Kumar, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Committee of Management, Janta Junior High School, Sonhita, District Jaunpur have approached the Court assailing the order dated 14 July 2016, passed by second respondent, Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi (Assistant Registrar), whereby the resolution of the petitioner society to merge the society and its assets into a trust has been rejected, further, the claim set up by third respondent has been accepted. 3. The facts would reveal that Janta Junior High School,Sonhita, District Jaunpur, a society duly registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860 was constituted in 1964; the affairs of the society is managed by its byelaws, the second petitioner is the recognized Manager of the society. The registration of the society has been renewed from time to time, the last undisputed election of the society was held on 4 March 2012 which was duly registered under Section 4 of the Act thereafter for the session 2014-15 and 2015-16. Upon papers being submitted, renewal of the society was granted on 28 October 2015 for the next five years. 4. It is alleged that the committee of management in its meeting held on 10 January 2013 resolved to merge the society with a newly created Trust namely, Swargiya Sardar Bahadur Singh Shiksha Trust, Sonhita, Jaunpur (hereinafter referred to as the Trust). It is contended that the resolution for amalgamation was passed under Section 12 of the Act and thereafter, the proceedings were communicated to the Assistant Registrar for approval. 5. By the impugned order, the Assistant Registrar rejected the proposal for amalgamation of the society with the Trust noting in the impugned order that there is no such provision under the Societies Registration Act but thereafter, the Assistant Registrar has approved the constitution of the new committee of management pursuant to the expulsion of second petitioner. 6. Sri R.K. Ojha, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri Kailash Nath Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the merger of the society into a Trust is permissible. In rebuttal, Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate would contend that the provision of Section 12 of the Act would provide that a society can be merged into another Society upon following the procedure prescribed thereunder. In rebuttal, Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate would contend that the provision of Section 12 of the Act would provide that a society can be merged into another Society upon following the procedure prescribed thereunder. In the present case, it is not the case of merger of two societies but amalgamation is being sought into a Trust which admittedly being private property is not permissible under the Societies Registration Act. It is further contended that the entire exercise being fraudulent based upon manipulation, for the reason that, as alleged by the petitioner, the meeting of the committee of management was held on 10 January 2013 and the meeting of General Body of the Society was held on 18 February 2013 approving the amalgamation, whereas the Trust admittedly, was registered subsequently on 4 April 2013, meaning thereby, on the date of the resolution of the committee of management and that of general body, the Trust was not in existence, therefore, it is urged that the entire exercise is merely a camouflage in order to usurp the property of the Society. It is contended that the Assistant Registrar while rejecting the resolution of the petitioner committee noted that the petitioner is acting against the interest of the society, therefore, it is urged that for anti-society activities, the petitioner has been removed from the ordinary membership of the society and a new committee has been constituted which has been duly approved by the impugned order. 7. On plain reading of Section 12 of the Act, it is emphatically clear that a Society can be merged into another society but there is no provision to merge a society into a Trust, registered under the Indian Trust Act. In my opinion, the judgement and order to that extend is unsustainable. 8. As regard the second issue, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the procedure as prescribed in the byelaws for removal of a member was not followed. The decision for inclusion and exclusion of member is to be taken by the General Body of the Society. No such meeting was held on 15 February 2016. Further, the Assistant Registrar has no jurisdiction to annul the registration of the committee of management. The decision for inclusion and exclusion of member is to be taken by the General Body of the Society. No such meeting was held on 15 February 2016. Further, the Assistant Registrar has no jurisdiction to annul the registration of the committee of management. The finding that has been returned by the Assistant Registrar regarding expulsion of the petitioner and thereafter constitution of a new committee, prima facie, appears not to be as per the prescribed procedure. The impugned order would record that the members of the general body have removed the petitioner, whereas the power conferred for removal and expulsion is upon the Apex Body (Sarvochchya Samiti), there is no letter or any resolution of the said Samiti, therefore, it appears that the Assistant Registrar has not decided or adjudicated upon as to whether the procedure prescribed under the byelaws of the society were followed and complied in removing the second petitioner from the primary membership of the society. It is, therefore, urged that there being dispute between two rival committee, the issue can be decided by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act. 9. The writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order to the extent it records that the society cannot be merged into a Trust is upheld, however, the second part of the order registering the respondent committee and upholding the election held in 2016 is set aside. 10. On the consent of parties, the Assistant Registrar is directed to refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority for decision within two weeks from the date of filing of a certified copy of the order. 11. Subject to above, the writ petition is allowed in part.