JUDGMENT Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.—Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel on behalf of the petitioners, learned standing counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2 and Sri R.K. Ojha, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Namit Srivastava on behalf of respondent No. 3. With their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of finally without inviting a formal counter-affidavit. 2. Islamia School Firozabad Association is a registered society under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (The Act). It is running an educational institution in the name of Islamia Inter College. The committee of management of the society is constituted in accordance with its bye-laws, whereunder the term is five years. According to the petitioners, in an election held on 14.9.2002, petitioner No. 2 was elected as Secretary and the third respondent as the President. However, the said fact was disputed by the third respondent. He filed a complaint before the Registrar alleging that no such election had ever taken place, nor he was elected as President. The aforesaid dispute was decided by the Deputy Registrar by order dated 21.4.2006. It is held that no elections had taken place on 14.9.2002 and consequently the Deputy Registrar proceeded to pass order for holding elections of the office bearers of the society under Section 25 (2) of the Act. The order of the Deputy Registrar dated 21.4.2006 was subjected to challenge by the petitioners before this Court in Writ-C No. 24342 of 2006. The main plea of the petitioners in the said writ petition was that the dispute before the Deputy Registrar was in relation to the election of office bearers of the society and thus, the Deputy Registrar had no jurisdiction to decide the same. The dispute ought to have been referred to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Act. 3. This Court, by judgment and order dated 20.5.2014, allowed the writ petition after recording a specific finding that the dispute was a bona fide dispute relating to the election of the office bearers of the society and the Deputy Registrar had no jurisdiction to adjudicate such a dispute. The operative part of the order is as under : “24. Therefore, for the reasons stated hereinabove, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Registrar-respondent No. 2 dated 21.4.2006 is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. The operative part of the order is as under : “24. Therefore, for the reasons stated hereinabove, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Registrar-respondent No. 2 dated 21.4.2006 is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside. The respondent No. 2 may pass fresh order in light of law mentioned above, after hearing the parties, expeditiously, but not later than two months from the date of communication of the order. 25. Thus, the writ petition is allowed. 26. No order as to costs.” 4. In pursuance of the liberty granted by this Court to the Deputy Registrar by order dated 20.5.2014, the impugned order has been passed on 19.1.2016, whereby the Deputy Registrar, once again, relying on various affidavits and documentary evidences, held that the petitioners failed to prove that any agenda was issued for holding the elections on 14.9.2002 and thus it seems that these elections were not validly held. Once again, the Deputy Registrar has directed for holding of elections under Section 25 (2) of the Act. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have, once again, approached this Court by way of instant writ petition challenging the order of the Deputy Registrar dated 19.1.2016. 5. It is urged by Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned order of the Deputy Registrar suffers from the same error which had occurred when the order dated 21.4.2006 was passed. It is submitted that once again, the Deputy Registrar adjudicated upon an election dispute. It is urged that after the elections of the year 2002, periodical elections were held and the list of elected office bearers of the year 2012-13 was duly registered on 13.9.2012. The aforesaid order was challenged before this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 52349 of 2012, which came to be dismissed as infructuous on 20.5.2014 i.e. on the same date. It is urged that since subsequent elections had taken place and the writ petition preferred by the third respondent challenging the registration of the list of office bearers of the year 2012-13, was dismissed as infructuous and thus, it was no more open to the Deputy Registrar to go into the validity of the elections held in the year 2002. 6. 6. Sri R.K. Ojha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent very fairly conceded to the legal position that the dispute which had come into existence before the Deputy Registrar was such as could have been decided only by the Prescribed Authority. He also does not dispute the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners that the Deputy Registrar, while passing the impugned order, has committed the same mistake, which was committed in the past, while passing the order dated 21.4.2006. He has thus no objection to the matter being referred to the Prescribed Authority. He, however, submitted that the registration of the list of office bearers of the year 2012-13 by order dated 13.9.2012 would not make the controversy infructuous. It is urged that the dismissal of Writ Petition No. 52349 of 2012 as infructuous on the same date when the judgment in the leading matter was delivered, clearly means that in view of the detailed judgment delivered in the main matter, no further order was required to be passed therein. He submitted that the order dated 20.5.2014 dismissing the writ petition as infructuous would not mean that this Court has upheld the elections held in the year 2012.. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The last elections as per the petitioners were allegedly held on 14.9.2002. According to the petitioners, in the said elections, the third respondent was elected as President. However, the third respondent himself raised a dispute before the Deputy Registrar that such elections had never been held, nor there was any occasion for his election as President. The Deputy Registrar, by order dated 21.4.2006, accepted the objections filed by the third respondent and recorded a finding that the elections set up by the petitioners dated 14.9.2002 were not validly held. This Court, in Writ Petition No. 24342 of 2006 preferred by the petitioners, accepted the challenge laid to the order of the Deputy Registrar on the ground that he had exceeded his jurisdiction in deciding an election dispute. The relevant findings in this regard are as under : “19. Admittedly, Syed Naved Mukarram has raised the dispute in his complaint in respect of the election of the Society. He was admittedly elected President of the Society, so he was not a rank outsider. His membership was not in dispute. The relevant findings in this regard are as under : “19. Admittedly, Syed Naved Mukarram has raised the dispute in his complaint in respect of the election of the Society. He was admittedly elected President of the Society, so he was not a rank outsider. His membership was not in dispute. Thus the Registrar had no jurisdiction to adjudicate such dispute which clearly falls under the jurisdiction of Prescribed Authority in terms of Section 25(1) of the Act, 1860. Such a dispute can be decided either by a reference made by the Registrar or by at least one-fourth members of the Society. 21. From the findings recorded by the Registrar it is demonstrably established that he has travelled beyond his jurisdiction as the jurisdiction clearly falls with the Prescribed Authority in terms of Section 25(1) of the Act No. 21 of 1860 as applicable in the State of U.P. Thus the Registrar has exceeded his jurisdiction. It was not a frivolous dispute.........” 9. The Court further recorded a finding that the nomination of Sub Divisional Magistrate for conducting the elections under Section 25 (2) of the Act was not justified, as he is to act as Prescribed Authority in case the validity of the elections are challenged. The matter was, therefore, remitted back to the Deputy Registrar to pass fresh orders. The Deputy Registrar, now by impugned order dated 19.1.2016, has held that there is no evidence to demonstrate that any agenda was issued for convening the meeting dated 14.9.2002 and thus, it seems that these elections were not validly held but is a result of fraud and fabrication. These findings, in the opinion of the Court, were wholly unwarranted in view of law laid down by this Court in the previous judgment and order dated 20.5.2014 to the effect that there was a bona fide election dispute raised before the Deputy Registrar and which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, could not have been decided by him, as it is only the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) who is conferred with such power. The matter was remitted to the Assistant Registrar to pass fresh orders in the light of law laid down in the judgment. The Deputy Registrar, therefore, ought to have referred the dispute to the Prescribed Authority. The matter was remitted to the Assistant Registrar to pass fresh orders in the light of law laid down in the judgment. The Deputy Registrar, therefore, ought to have referred the dispute to the Prescribed Authority. However, he committed manifest error of law in discarding the elections dated 14.9.2002 and by once again invoking the power under Section 25 (2) of the Act on the assumption that no valid elections having been held in the year 2002, the Committee has outlived its tenure. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Agra dated 19.1.2016 cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. 10. The issue which still remains to be considered is as regards the course which is to be adopted in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. According to the counsel for the petitioners, the matter cannot be referred to the Prescribed Authority in view of periodical elections having been held in the year 2007 and which have attained finality, in view of rejection of the writ petitions challenging registration of the list on basis of these elections. 11. The registration of list of office bearers on the basis of elections held in the year 2007 and 2012 was specifically made subject to the decision in the matter pending before this Court. The main writ petition preferred by the petitioners was allowed by this Court on a jurisdictional plea raised by the petitioners. However, it is noticeable that this Court had not entered any finding on the validity of the elections dated 14.9.2002. Upon the order of the Deputy Registrar impugned in the writ petition being set aside, there had been no fresh adjudication as regards the validity of the said election. Indisputably, the right to hold subsequent elections by the petitioners was dependent on the validity of the elections dated 14.9.2002 being upheld. The mere fact that writ petitions filed before this Court challenging the registration of the list of office bearers under Section 4 were dismissed as infructuous would not mean that this Court had adjudicated upon the validity of the elections on the basis of which the list was registered. The mere fact that writ petitions filed before this Court challenging the registration of the list of office bearers under Section 4 were dismissed as infructuous would not mean that this Court had adjudicated upon the validity of the elections on the basis of which the list was registered. On the other hand, it is evident from the tenor of the order passed on the same date in Writ Petition No. 32929 of 2012 and 52349 of 2012 that this Court did not consider it expedient to go into the validity of the registration of the list of office bearers under Section 4, as in the main matter, various directions were issued to the Deputy Registrar for passing fresh orders in relation to the elections held on 14.9.2002. It is more than clear that the intention of the Court was that the fate of subsequent elections would depend on the outcome of the decision that would be taken by the authorities pursuant to the remand order in relation to the elections dated 14.9.2002. As such, it is difficult to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of dismissal of Writ Petition No. 32929 of 2012 and Writ Petition No. 52349 of 2012 as infructuous, the elections held subsequently in the year 2007 and 2012 as well as the order of the Deputy Registrar dated 13.9.2012 have attained finality and consequently, the validity of the elections held in the year 2002 cannot be reopened by referring the matter to the Prescribed Authority. 12. As a consequence and in view of the discussions made above, the impugned order passed by the Deputy Registrar dated 19.1.2016 is set aside. The second respondent is directed to refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority relating to validity of the elections dated 14.9.2002 to the Prescribed Authority within a period of two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed by any of the parties. The Prescribed Authority shall enter upon the Reference and after hearing the parties, decide the Reference in accordance with law, expeditiously and preferably within a period of next six months. 13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. ——————