JUDGMENT Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.—Heard counsel for the petitioners, the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Sri A.K. Srivastava on behalf of respondent No. 4. With their consent, this writ petition is being decided finally, without inviting counter-affidavit. 2. The subject-matter of challenge in the instant writ petition is an order passed by the second respondent dated 10 September 2015 whereby, the list of office bearers of the committee of management of a registered society in the name of Shiv Shanker Pandey Janta Junior High School, Fattepur, Nauranga, Kanpur Nagar for the year 2015-16, has been directed to be registered in exercise of power under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The aforesaid society runs a Junior High School in the same name. The last elections of the committee of management of the society were held on 26 August 2012, in which the second petitioner was elected as Manager and Chhotey Lal Uttam, as the Deputy Manager. The term of the committee of management of the society under the bye laws is 3 years. According to the petitioners, fresh elections were held on 30 August 2015 from a list of 16 valid members of the general body, in which Shree Narain Sachan was elected as President and the second petitioner as Manager. The papers in respect of the election proceedings were submitted before the second respondent on 10 September 2015. 3. The case of the petitioners is that one Santosh Kumar Sachan was working as Head Master in the Junior High School and he retired on 30 June 2011. After his retirement, the Deputy Manager requested the second petitioner to appoint son of Santosh Kumar Sachan as Head Master of the Junior High School. However, petitioner No. 2 claims to have refused the said request, and which annoyed Santosh Kumar Sachan and Chhotey Lal Uttam. They colluded with each other and in a meeting allegedly held on 2 August 2015, it is claimed that 6 persons including the second petitioner were expelled from the primary membership. In the said meeting, only 5 persons were shown to have participated. On 23 August 2015, Chhotey Lal Uttam, the Deputy Manager had shown to have held fresh elections from an alleged list of 46 members of the general body, in which Dr. In the said meeting, only 5 persons were shown to have participated. On 23 August 2015, Chhotey Lal Uttam, the Deputy Manager had shown to have held fresh elections from an alleged list of 46 members of the general body, in which Dr. Shree Narain Sachan was allegedly elected as President and Chhotey Lal Uttam as Manager. By the impugned order, the Deputy Manager had directed for registration of the list of office bearers submitted by Chhotey Lal Uttam on the basis of elections held on 23 August 2015. 4. It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that the expulsion of the second petitioner as also 5 other members from the primary membership of the society in pursuance of an alleged meeting held on 2 August 2015 was wholly illegal. According to him, for expulsion of a member, the motion has to be passed by a majority of two-third, whereas, in the instant case, only 5 members participated, although the general body comprises of 16 members. It is further submitted that the alleged elections set-up by the fourth respondent dated 23 August 2015 under the Presidentship of Dr. Shree Narain Sachan are a result of fraud and fabrication. It is submitted that neither any agenda was circulated nor the meeting was convened by the validly elected Manager. It is further pointed out that Dr. Shree Narain Sachan under whose Chairmanship the meeting was allegedly held had informed the Deputy Registrar by letter dated 15 September 2015 that he had not participated in any such meeting. It is further pointed out that despite the list submitted by the fourth respondent having been registered, the second petitioner is still operating the accounts of the society and the signatures of Chhotey Lal Uttam have not been attested so far. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that in the facts and circumstances aforesaid, there was a dispute relating to continuance in office of the Manager of the Managing Committee of the society and the validity of the proceedings dated 2 August 2015 was to be determined. It is further urged that in view of rival set of elections set-up by the parties, the Deputy Registrar was not justified in registering the list of office bearers submitted by the fourth respondent. It is further urged that in view of rival set of elections set-up by the parties, the Deputy Registrar was not justified in registering the list of office bearers submitted by the fourth respondent. In his submission, the order passed in this regard by the second respondent is without jurisdiction and in transgression of the domain exclusively reserved for the Prescribed Authority by virtue of Section 25(1). 6. Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent had made a statement on 4 January 2016 that there is a separate detailed order passed by the second respondent determining the controversy. In view of the said statement made by him, the matter was adjourned on 4 January 2016 for being taken up today. When the matter was taken up today, he could not produce any separate order passed by the Deputy Registrar determining the controversy, except the order on the prescribed proforma dated 10 September 2015 informing Chhotey Lal Uttam that the list of office bearers submitted by him has been registered. He initially tried to support the action of the Deputy Registrar, but later on very fairly conceded that in the facts of the instant case, it was only the Prescribed Authority, who was competent to take decision in the matter. He, therefore, submitted that the Prescribed Authority may be permitted to determine the controversy and he has no objection to the impugned order being set-aside. 7. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondents also does not dispute the legal position that in view of rival claim relating to elections set-up before the Deputy Registrar as well as the dispute regarding continuance in office on the post of Manager of the erst while committee, the dispute could only have been decided by the Prescribed Authority. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 10 September 2015 directing registering of the list of office bearers submitted by the fourth respondent is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The second respondent is directed to refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority within a period of two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him by any of the parties. It is desirable that thereafter, the Prescribed Authority may enter into reference and decide the same, after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to the parties. It is desirable that thereafter, the Prescribed Authority may enter into reference and decide the same, after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to the parties. Needless to mention that thereafter the second respondent shall proceed to register the list of office bearers on the basis of determination made by the Prescribed Authority. No order as to costs. ———————