JUDGMENT Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard Shri Ramesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Jaideep Narain Mathur, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri R.K. Singh, learned counsel representing the respondent no.4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 to 3 has also been heard. 3. The petitioner no.1 alleges itself to be the Committee of Management represented through its President Shri Balbhadra Dubey. The petitioner no.2 is said to be the President of the Society. The petitioners have challenged the validity of an order dated 14.07.2016, passed by the Deputy Registrar, Faizabad Region, Faizabad, whereby he has admitted the list of members of the general body of the society comprising of 67 members. 4. The impugned order dated 14.07.2016 is referable to sub section 4-B of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as perusal of the said order reveals that on 13.01.2015 respondent no.4 submitted a representation annexing therewith certain documents and stated that on 16.11.2014 the Committee of Management of the society passed resolution nominating the Manager to induct new members and on the said basis 38 new members of the general body of the society were inducted. The Deputy Registrar directed the respondent no.4 vide its letter dated 11.02.2016 to produce all the original records so that the list of the members submitted by him may be admitted under sub section 4-B of the Act. 5. The Deputy Registrar in the impugned order further recites that on the basis of the original records such as Soochna Register, Proceedings Register, Membership Register, Membership Receipt Book, Bank Passbook and Bank Deposits Receipts and further information regarding death of certain members upto date, the general body of the society comprising of 67 members listed therein has been approved. 6. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the procedure by which these new members have been inducted in the general body of the society is highly disputed and it is not in terms of the provisions contained in bye laws prescribing the procedure for inducting new members. He has also stated that though this order was passed way back on 14.07.2016, however, despite the petitioner no.2 having raised a dispute to the entire proceedings was not served a copy thereof; neither the said order is even endorsed to him. He has also stated that though this order was passed way back on 14.07.2016, however, despite the petitioner no.2 having raised a dispute to the entire proceedings was not served a copy thereof; neither the said order is even endorsed to him. He has also stated that the entire proceedings by the Deputy Registrar under sub section 2 of section 4-B of the Act while passing the impugned order dated 14.07.2016 have been done surreptitiously. 7. It is not in dispute that the Committee of Management of the institution is the same as the Committee of Management of the Society. The notice for election dated 12.11.2016, which has been annexed as annexure no.2 to the writ petition, has been issued by the respondent no.4, according to which, 28.11.2016 is the date of election of the Committee of Management. Since the constitution of the Committee of Management of the institution is exactly the same as the constitution of the Committee of Management of the Society as such any election to be held pursuant to the notice dated 12.11.2016 will not only be constituting the Committee of Management of the institution but also the Committee of Management of the society. 8. In case the petitioner, or for that matter any member, has any grievance regarding constitution of the Committee of Management of the society, they will have a remedy available to them under sub section 1 of Section 25 of the Act which provides that the prescribed authority may, on a reference made to it by the Registrar or by at least one-fourth of the members of a society shall decide, in a summary manner, any doubt or dispute in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office-bearer of the society. The grounds on which the election dispute of Committee of Management of a society can be raised under sub section 1 of section 25 of the Act are inter alia that the result of the election has been materially affected by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void. The grounds on which the election dispute of Committee of Management of a society can be raised under sub section 1 of section 25 of the Act are inter alia that the result of the election has been materially affected by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void. Thus, in case submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the electoral college, which has been finalized by the impugned order dated 14.07.2016, on the basis of which the election of the Committee of Management of the College (in this case the Committee of Management of the society as well) is being held, suffers from some illegality or unlawful induction of some members in the general body, he will have a remedy available to him to challenge the elections under sub section 1 of section 25 of the Act. It is also noticeable that as per the requirement of section 4 of the Act annual list of the managing body of the society is to be filed before the Registrar. The proviso appended to section 4 provides that if the managing body of the society is elected after the last submission of the list, counter signatures of old members shall be obtained on the list and if the old office-bearers do not countersign the list, the Registrar will issue a public notice or notice to such persons as he thinks fit inviting objections. Thus, apart from the remedy available to the petitioner under section 1 of section 25 of the Act, once elections are held, he will have opportunity to object to the newly elected managing body of the society under section 4 of the Act. 9. Accordingly, at this stage, I am unable to persuade himself to interfere in the writ petition, which is hereby dismissed. 10. The elections pursuant to the notice issued by the respondent no.4 shall be held in accordance with the schedule given therein. Once the elections are held, the petitioner will have opportunity to challenge the same in accordance with the provisions contained in section 25 (1) of the Act. He will have also an opportunity to object the managing body which the newly elected managing body of the society of the college would be required to furnish to the Registrar under section 4 of the Act. 11. He will have also an opportunity to object the managing body which the newly elected managing body of the society of the college would be required to furnish to the Registrar under section 4 of the Act. 11. There will be no order as to costs.