JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned counsel representing respondent nos.3 and 4. 2. This petition by eight individuals challenges the validity of an order dated 24.06.2017 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies an Chits, Lucknow Region, Lucknow whereby the election of the executive body of the society known as ‘Al-Huda Muslim Educational Society, U.P. Triveni Nagar-III Near Sitapur Road, Lucknow’ has been recognized and the list of members of the executive body of the said society for the year 2017-18 has been registered/taken on record. 3. Lengthy arguments have been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners to impeach the impugned order stating therein that the Deputy Registrar has completely failed to consider the bye-laws of the society, according to which, first of all the executive committee is to be constituted in terms of Section 8 of bye-laws and it is only thereafter that the office bearers of the executive body can be elected in terms of the provisions contained in Section 10 of the bye-laws of the society. It has further been argued that primarily the contention raised by the petitioners before the Deputy Registrar was that election of the office bearers has not been held in terms of the bye-laws of the society, hence it was a dispute relating to election of the members of the executive body of the society, as such without there being any resolution of the election dispute as provided under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act, the Deputy Registrar could not have passed the impugned order registering the list of office bearers of the society purportedly under Section 4 of the Act. 4. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment of this Court passed by a Division Bench in the Special Appeal Defective No.1286 of 2013; Committee of Management Anjuman Kherul Almin Allahabad and another vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 18.12.2013. 5. Learned counsel representing the respondent nos.3 and 4 has vehemently opposed the petition and has submitted that in fact the petitioners do not have any locus in their individual capacity to challenge the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel representing the respondent nos.3 and 4 has vehemently opposed the petition and has submitted that in fact the petitioners do not have any locus in their individual capacity to challenge the impugned order. He has further stated that the election of the office bearers of the society has been conducted in accordance with law, as such the petitioners for that matter cannot have any grievance against the impugned order. He has also stated that the election of the office bearers held on 11.05.2017, on the basis of which, the impugned order dated 24.06.2017 has been passed, was never opposed or objected to by the petitioners and hence, at this stage they cannot be permitted to challenge the same. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 24.06.2017, what unambiguously transpires is that it was a dispute relating to election of the members of the executive body of the society which arose before the Deputy Registrar and without resolution of such dispute relating to election, the registration of the allegedly elected members of the executive body of the society could not have been done. 7. Submission made by learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 and 4 that since the petitioners had not objected to election dated 11.05.2017, as such they cannot maintain this petition, in my considered opinion, does not hold the ground for the reason that the impugned order dated 24.06.2017 itself recites that Shuaib Ahsan Usmani-petitioner no.5 and Dr. Shakil Ahmad-petitioner no.3 were present at the time of hearing of the matter before the Deputy Registrar. Even otherwise, as soon as any dispute relating to election or continuance in office of an office bearers arises, the Deputy Registrar has to refer the dispute for its resolution before the Prescribed Authority as provided under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act. It is only after resolution of such election dispute under Section 25 (1) of the Act that proceedings under Section 4 of the Act for registration of the members of the executive body of the society can be passed. 8. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be allowed, which is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 24.06.2017 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies an Chits, Lucknow Region, Lucknow, as is contained in annexure no.19 to the writ petition is hereby quashed. 9. 8. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be allowed, which is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 24.06.2017 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies an Chits, Lucknow Region, Lucknow, as is contained in annexure no.19 to the writ petition is hereby quashed. 9. The Deputy Registrar is directed to make a reference to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Act within a week from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Once the reference under Section 25 (1) is made to the Prescribed Authority by the Deputy Registrar concerned, the Prescribed Authority shall proceed to decide the matter in accordance with law after issuing notices to all concerned including the petitioners as well as the respondents. The Prescribed Authority shall expedite the proceedings of the reference under Section 25 (1) of the Act and conclude the same positively within a period of two months from the date a reference from the Deputy Registrar is received by him. 10. It is further directed that parties to the proceedings of reference under Section 25 (1) of the Act, which will be drawn by the Prescribed Authority, shall not seek any unnecessary adjournments and shall cooperate in the proceedings. The adjournment, if any prayed for, shall be granted by the Prescribed Authority only in exceptional circumstances. 11. At this juncture, it has been suggested by learned counsel representing the respondent nos.3 and 4 that in fact, the executive body of the society is entitled to manage its affairs with effect from the date of passing of the impugned order i.e. 24.06.2017 and since the matter is being relegated to the Deputy Registrar for making reference under Section 25 (1) of the Act, an administrator may be appointed for the interregnum period to discharge the functions of the executive body of the society till the decision in terms of this order is taken by the Prescribed Authority. 12. Sri Zafaryab Jilani, learned counsel for the petitioners has, however, opposed the aforesaid suggestion and has submitted that in terms of the provisions contained in Sections 8 (3) and 10 (2) of the byelaws of the society, the term of the executive body of the society is five years or so long as the new committee comes into existence and that the outgoing office bearers shall be entitled to hold the office until the next election. 13. 13. In view of the aforesaid, it has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that since the impugned order whereby the new executive body was recognized/registered by the Deputy Registrar is being set-aside, hence, as a natural consequence, the outgoing office bearers shall be entitled to hold the office till next selection takes place, which in the instant case will be dependent upon the final outcome of the decision to be taken by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Act. 14. Having considered the suggestions made by learned counsel for respondent nos.4 and 5 and also the objection raised by Sri Jilani, learned counsel for the petitioners, the Court notices that as soon as the impugned order dated 24.06.2017 was passed recognizing the new executive body of the society in terms of the provision contained in terms of Section 10 (2) of the bye-laws of the society, the right of the outgoing executive body to manage the affairs of the society got extinguished and ordinarily the newly elected office bearers ought to have been in charge to run the affairs of the society from the date their election was recognized by the Deputy Registrar by passing the impugned order dated 24.06.2017. 15. Since the impugned order has been quashed by this order and the right of outgoing executive body to manage the affairs of the society got extinguished on 24.06.2017, I find it appropriate, in the interest of justice and the society as well, to appoint an administrator for the interregnum period, who shall discharge the functions of the executive body of the society. 16. Accordingly, Sri Shafiq Mirza, a Senior practicing lawyer of this Court is appointed as administrator to discharge the functions of the executive body of the society, namely, Al-Huda Muslim Educational Society, U.P. Triveni Nagar-III Near Sitapur Road, Lucknow’. The charge of the executive body of the society shall be given by the concerned person/persons to administrator, Sri Shafiq Mirza within five days from today. The administrator appointed by this Court shall discharge only routine functions of the executive body of the society, however he will neither induct any new member in the society nor shall he have authority to expel any existing member from the society. The administrator appointed by this Court shall discharge only routine functions of the executive body of the society, however he will neither induct any new member in the society nor shall he have authority to expel any existing member from the society. The administrator appointed under this order shall countersign the salary bills of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the institutions being run by the society. It shall also be lawful for him to incur necessary routine expenses such as electricity bill, expenditure in running the school buses and other routine works. 17. Let a certified copy of this order be furnished to learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges by tomorrow. 18. Office shall also furnish certified copy of this order to Sri Shafiq Mirza free of charge forthwith. Costs made easy.