JUDGMENT Heard Sri M. B. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant, Sri Sanjay Misra for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4. Learned Counsel for the parties agree that this appeal be disposed of finally alongwith Writ Petition No.26720 (MS) of 2016, the interim order passed wherein on 9.11.2016 has given rise to this appeal, as learned Counsel for the parties do not propose to file any further affidavits in the matter. In view of the aforesaid submission, we are proceeding to dispose of the appeal as well as the writ petition finally at this stage itself. In view of the aforesaid proposal made by the learned Counsel for the parties, we have summoned the records of Writ Petition as well. The interim order, which has been passed by the learned Single Judge and is presently questioned in this appeal, is extracted hereunder in order to avoid any dilation of further facts, which may require the adjudication of the controversy: - "It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the last election was held in the year 2008 and the list of the office-bearers was registered on 01st July, 2008. A copy of the said list is on the record as annexure-6 to the writ petition. After the term of five years was over, fresh election was held on 27th April, 2013 and list of office-bearers of the subsequent election was also registered on 29th November, 2013. A copy of the said order is on the record as annexure-9 to the writ petition. In view of the above, it is submitted that the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits cannot adjudicate the validity of election of 2008, term of which was over. Sri M.B. Singh, learned Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of the third respondent. He submits that the election of 2013 was never held and he had no knowledge about the date of election, hence the Deputy Registrar has rightly passed the impugned order. He further submits that the contesting respondent has filed objection against the election of 2013 and not against 2008, however, the Deputy Registrar has reopened the issue of 2008 election. The objection was also filed by the members in respect of 2013 election. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. He further submits that the contesting respondent has filed objection against the election of 2013 and not against 2008, however, the Deputy Registrar has reopened the issue of 2008 election. The objection was also filed by the members in respect of 2013 election. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Admittedly, the list of office-bearers of 2013 election has been registered, which is on the record. In view of the above, the Deputy Registrar, in my prima facie view, has no jurisdiction to reopen the dispute of election of 2008, term of which was over. Hence, the petitioner has made out a prima facie case. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the first and second respondents. Learned counsel for the third respondent prays for and is granted a week's time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter. Learned Standing Counsel may also file counter affidavit on or before the next date. List this case on 30th November, 2016. Till the next date of listing the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 27th October, 2016 passed by the first respondent shall remain stayed." A perusal thereof indicates that the contention of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the writ petitioners, is to the effect that the Deputy Registrar proceeded without jurisdiction in reopening the issue of elections of 2008 and also entertaining the dispute about the 2013 elections. The learned Single Judge has come to the prima facie conclusion that the 2013 elections and the list of office bearers pursuant thereto has been registered and in such a background, it was not open to the Deputy Registrar to have proceeded to reopen the issue of elections of the 2008 itself. Sri M. B. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant concedes to this proposition that the issue of 2008 elections could not have been reopened by the Deputy Registrar and rightly so, inasmuch as it is not open to the Deputy Registrar either to adjudicate an election dispute, which has to go before the Prescribed Authority or even reopen the same on the merits of any such claim. If the tenure of the previous committee has expired, an infructuous dispute cannot be reopened under the garb of any such complaint which has now been made in the year 2014. If the tenure of the previous committee has expired, an infructuous dispute cannot be reopened under the garb of any such complaint which has now been made in the year 2014. In view of the aforesaid position that emerges, the issue is now of the 2013 elections, the list whereof has already been registered. There is no occasion for the Deputy Registrar to de-register the list on any such complaint, which is in the nature of an election dispute. If the dispute about the election is sought to be raised, then in terms of the provisions of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, either the election dispute can be raised before the Prescribed Authority by 1/4th members of the Society or the Deputy Registrar comes to the conclusion that there is any some bona fide claim or dispute to be referred about the election, the tenure whereof is 5 years and will come to an end in 2018. There is no occasion to disturb the functioning of the elected office bearers of the Committee of Management of the Society unless a valid election dispute results in the passing of an order. Consequently, the writ petition deserves to be allowed, which is hereby allowed and the order dated 27.10.2016 passed by the Deputy Registrar is quashed. Accordingly, this appeal and the writ petition stand disposed of with the observation that in the event there is some bona fide or genuine dispute before the Deputy Registrar, only then he will refer the matter and not otherwise.