JUDGMENT : 1. These two appeals arise out of a common judgment delivered by a learned Single Judge arising out of two writ petitions being Writ Petition No.11869 (MS) of 2016 and Writ Petition No.9771 (MS) of 2016 dated 20.4.2017. 2. The facts shorn off unnecessary details that have given rise to these two Appeals are that Writ Petition No.11869 (MS) of 2016 has been filed by Sri Ayaz Mustafa Khan claiming himself to be the Manager/Secretary of Al-Jamitul Ghausia Arabic College Samiti, Utraula, District Balrampur contending that the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits has passed the order dated 13.4.2016 which is without jurisdiction, inasmuch as once a dispute had been raised pertaining to the continuance of the office bearers of the Society, then the Deputy Registrar had no jurisdiction to entertain any such grievance and assume an authority to decide such a dispute that ought to have been referred to the Prescribed Authority for being decided in terms of Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Thus, the order, being without jurisdiction, ought to have been quashed, yet the learned Single Judge without appreciating the aforesaid issue has committed an error directing the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits to decide the matter again after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. 3. Consequently, Special Appeal No.196 of 2017 has been filed by Sri Ayaz Mustafa Khan and another praying for setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and to allow Writ Petition No.11869 (MS) of 2016 quashing the order dated 13.4.2016. We have heard Sri R. C. Tewari, learned Counsel for the appellants in the said Appeal. 4. After passing of the order dated 13.4.2016, it appears that Sri Ayaz Mustafa Khan moved an application on 18.4.2016 stating before the Deputy Registrar about the orders dated 26.11.2014 passed in C.M.W.P. No. 553 of 2004 and Writ Petition No.7365 (MS) of 2014 and prayed that the order dated 13.4.2016 be reviewed. 4. After passing of the order dated 13.4.2016, it appears that Sri Ayaz Mustafa Khan moved an application on 18.4.2016 stating before the Deputy Registrar about the orders dated 26.11.2014 passed in C.M.W.P. No. 553 of 2004 and Writ Petition No.7365 (MS) of 2014 and prayed that the order dated 13.4.2016 be reviewed. The same was a voluminous application raising several pleas therein with regard to the claim of the continuance of his Committee of Management on which the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits passed an order on 20.4.2016 staying the operation of the earlier order dated 13.4.2016 whereby he had after deciding the entire dispute issued directions for holding fresh elections in exercise of the powers under Sub-Section (2) of Section 25 of the 1860 Act. This order dated 20.4.2016 staying the earlier order dated 13.4.2016 came to be challenged by Sri Ahmad Ali claiming himself to be the Deputy Secretary/Deputy Manager of the Management Committee of Al-Jamitul Ghausia Arabic College Samiti, Utraula, Balrampur. A learned Single Judge of this Court passed an interim order dated 5.5.2016 staying the operation of the impugned order dated 20.4.2016. However, while disposing of the writ petition finally, learned Single Judge passed the impugned judgment dated 20.4.2017 directing the Deputy Registrar to decide the controversy after giving an adequate opportunity within a period of eight weeks. This faction headed by Ahmad Ali has filed Special Appeal No.187 of 2017 contending that the learned Single Judge ought to have allowed Writ Petition No.9771 (MS) of 2016 whereby a challenge had been raised to the order of the Deputy Registrar dated 20.4.2016 which was patently without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the Deputy Registrar firstly had no power of review and secondly, while committing an error in entertaining the review application, he had no authority to pass an interim order staying the operation of a final order that had been passed after hearing the parties concerned. 5. It is in the aforesaid background that these two Special Appeals have been filed and Sri H. G. S. Parihar, learned Senior Counsel has put forward his submissions in Special Appeal No.187 of 2017 on behalf of the appellants. Both the learned Counsel appearing in the respective Appeals have also raised their submissions for the same parties as respondents arrayed in the respective Appeals. Both the learned Counsel appearing in the respective Appeals have also raised their submissions for the same parties as respondents arrayed in the respective Appeals. Learned Counsel for the parties have also agreed for the disposal of these two Appeals simultaneously as also for disposal of the entire matter without awaiting any further affidavits. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State and the Deputy Registrar has also advanced his submissions on the legal issues raised. 6. We have considered the submissions and at the very outset, we may point out that none of the learned counsel for the respective parties including the learned Standing Counsel could defend the order dated 20.4.2016 whereby the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits had proceeded to entertain the review application and passed an interim order staying the operation of the order dated 13.4.2016. In our considered opinion, the Deputy Registrar had no power to entertain such an application after the final order had been passed by him on 13.4.2016. Thus, the exercise of the Deputy Registrar in proceeding to entertain the application and pass the interim order was clearly without jurisdiction as he had no power to review his own order. Consequently, the order dated 20.4.2016 being without jurisdiction ought to have been quashed by the learned Single Judge. The impugned judgment dated 20.4.2017 therefore being erroneous to that extent has to be set aside and Writ Petition No.9771 (MS) of 2016 deserves to be allowed by quashing the order dated 20.4.2016. 7. The next contention is in relation to the order dated 13.4.2016 which is under challenge in Writ Petition No.11869 (MS) of 2016. Sri R. C. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the appellant petitioner/ Ayaz Mustafa Khan has urged that the Deputy Registrar had no jurisdiction to entertain any doubt or dispute of the election of the Committee of Management of a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and if the dispute had been raised, it was incumbent upon him to have referred the matter to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the 1860 Act. Apart from this, the conclusion drawn by the Deputy Registrar is even otherwise erroneous on facts and it records perverse findings in respect of the elections that had already been held and the list of office bearers whereof had been registered. The same could not have been reviewed. 8. Apart from this, the conclusion drawn by the Deputy Registrar is even otherwise erroneous on facts and it records perverse findings in respect of the elections that had already been held and the list of office bearers whereof had been registered. The same could not have been reviewed. 8. He further submits that since the issue raised with regard to the membership of the General Body was also directly connected with the resolutions of a validly elected Committee, then the same also ought not to have been interfered with by the Deputy Registrar to hold that there were no valid elections held and secondly, he further committed an error by issuing a direction for holding fresh elections. 9. The said arguments have been vehemently opposed by Sri H. G. S. Parihar, learned Counsel for the faction led by Sri Ahmad Ali to urge that the order of the Deputy Registrar dated 13.4.2016 has been passed after hearing the parties concerned and having found that the records had been manipulated, the Deputy Registrar had every authority to rectify the same as the said authority was within it's jurisdiction to correct any manipulation or fraud on the basis whereof the other faction has been claiming continuance. He therefore submits that the Deputy Registrar was within his authority while passing the order dated 13.4.2016 and there being no valid election he was fully justified in proceeding to issue the directions contained therein. 10. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and what we find from the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20.4.2017 is that none of these issues have been dealt with much less a finding being recorded thereon. The impugned judgment dated 20.4.2017 therefore is clearly deficient on that account and the same cannot be sustained. 11. However, what we find is that the germane issue is, as to whether the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits had any jurisdiction to decide a doubt or dispute with regard to the continuance of office bearers who were claiming themselves could have been elected in valid elections. The said question remains unanswered in the judgment of the learned Single Judge nor has the Deputy Registrar proceeded to consider the said aspect being entering upon the adjudication of the said dispute. 12. The said question remains unanswered in the judgment of the learned Single Judge nor has the Deputy Registrar proceeded to consider the said aspect being entering upon the adjudication of the said dispute. 12. The narration of facts by the Deputy Registrar in the order dated 13.4.2016 itself demonstrates that the dispute had arisen on account of the papers that had been submitted and the role of Sri Ayaz Mustafa Khan, the Manager/Secretary who had tendered the election papers of the election held on 27.10.2013. The said proceedings were entertained by the Deputy Registrar and after inviting objections from one Mr. Jamal Noori, an order was passed on 28.7.2014 registering the list of office bearers. The Deputy Registrar has further narrated that Sri Ayaz Mustafa Khan had submitted a list of members of the General Body dated 10.3.2015 praying for it's registration and after recording the proceedings about the said membership list, the Deputy Registrar has recorded that the valid list of members was issued on 28.4.2015. 13. Sri Ayaz Mustafa Khan moved an application on 30.6.2015 along with the proceedings of 2015-16 as well as the list of office bearers and prayed for registering of the annual list of office bearers for 2015-16 on which objections were invited from Sri Mahboob Ali Khan, who had been shown to have been substituted as the President, instead of Manager in the said list. He was therefore called upon to give any objections whereupon Sri Mahboob Ali Khan on 10.7.2015 gave a response that he had no objection to the same and consequently on 29.7.2015 the annual list of office bearers was registered. 14. It is at this stage that a dispute appears to have been raised and the Commissioner of the Division was approached where after according to the Deputy Registrar the allegations made against Sri Ayaz Mustafa Khan was that he manipulated and fraudulently got the proceedings dated 27.10.2013 and the list dated 14.6.2015 registered in which there are considerable manipulations. It is in this background that the dispute was entered upon by the Deputy Registrar to adjudicate the controversy. 15. It is in this background that the dispute was entered upon by the Deputy Registrar to adjudicate the controversy. 15. Having traversed the aforesaid aspects of the matter, what we find is that the above facts having been noted by the Deputy Registrar, it was incumbent upon him to have first examined that if this was a dispute with regard to the continuance of the office bearers and the validity of the Committee of Management entitled to continue, then whether he did have any jurisdiction to deal with the matter and come to the conclusion that the tenure of the Committee of Management had come to an end for holding fresh elections or not. The Deputy Registrar has completely overlooked this aspect which has been dealt with and decided in a large number of cases of this Court holding that whenever there is a doubt or dispute of the election of a Committee of Management of a Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, then in that event, the matter has to be referred to the Prescribed Authority for decision in accordance with law. Since we find that the Deputy Registrar has without looking to the aforesaid aspect of the matter proceeded to enter upon the dispute himself, the order dated 13.4.2016 also cannot be sustained. The learned Single Judge has committed the same error while disposing off the writ petition. Consequently, the said order also deserves to be quashed and the writ petition No.11869 (MS) of 2016 also deserves to be allowed. 16. For all the aforesaid reasons recorded here-in-above, we allow both the Appeals and set aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20.4.2017 in it's entirety. We also allow both Writ Petitions No.11869 (MS) of 2016 and No.9771 (MS) of 2016 and quash the orders dated 13.4.2016 and 20.4.2016 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Faizabad. 17. Accordingly, the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits shall now, in the light of what has been stated above, proceed to pass necessary orders after hearing the parties and in the event, he comes to the conclusion that this doubt or dispute pertaining to continuance of the office bearers has to be decided by the Prescribed Authority, then in that event if the matter is referred to the Prescribed Authority, he shall decide the same expeditiously preferably within three months. If the Deputy Registrar chooses to proceed himself, he shall record reasons for the same in the light of above.