JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J.—This writ petition has been filed by petitioner No. 1 through its Secretary Sunil Lal. Petitioner No. 2 is Sunil Lal himself and petitioner No. 3 is David S.K. Jai, Chairman/Treasurer of the Society. The petitioners pray for quashing of the order dated 3.12.2016 passed by Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Jhansi Division, Jhansi with a further prayer for issuance of mandamus to restrain the office-bearers of the impugned list approved by the Assistant Registrar from interfering in the functioning of David S.K. Jai as Chairman/Treasurer and also to permit him to operate the bank account of the Society. 2. The facts relevant to the decision of the controversy that has emerged from the pleadings are, that the Field Council of Norwegian Evangelical Mission, Karvi, Chitrakoot (hereinafter to referred as “the Society”) is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter to referred as “the Act of 1860”). The registered office of the Society is situated at Karwi, District Banda (now Chitrakoot). The Society has a Memorandum of Association and its own bye laws and Regulations. The Society was initially registered in October, 1974 with Ms. Aase Jorgensen as Chairman/Treasurer and Ms. Anna Marie Grothe as Vice Chairman, Philip Dass, Mrs. S.P. Bezaleel, R. Kristiansen, Samuel Jai, Miss. S. Dass and Mrs. A. Dass, a total of nine members. The Governing Body was constituted out of all these nine members and had five members in it initially. Ms. Aase Jorgensen was Superintendent of Mission and Chairman/Treasurer of the Society. Ms. Anna Marie Grothe was Manager of the School and Vice-Chairman. Shambhu Prasad Bezaleel was the Secretary. Philip Dass and Ms. S.P. Bezaleel were members of the Governing Body. 3. Under the Memorandum of Association the aims and objects of the Society were stated to be mainly setting up of charitable hospitals, dispensaries, medical relief vans, clinics and for establishing and maintaining chapels etc. and also rescue homes for the poor and the needy besides promoting the christian education by setting up schools for training christian candidates for ministry and to arrange their ordination. and also rescue homes for the poor and the needy besides promoting the christian education by setting up schools for training christian candidates for ministry and to arrange their ordination. The Society was to get financial aid from Norwegian Evangelical Mission, Norway, in setting up its initial properties and the income of the Society derived from such properties was to be applied on a non profit basis solely for promotion of its objects set out in the Memorandum of Association. 4. Under the Rules and Regulations of the Society, the membership of the Society was restricted to Christians only and Superintendent of Norwegian Evangelical Mission was to be ex-officio member and the Chairman/Treasurer of the Society and its Governing Body. Under Clause 5 of the Rules and Regulations the Governing Body for the first five years was to consist of Chairman/Treasurer, Vice-Chairman, a Secretary and two members. Under Clause 6 of the Rules and Regulations the Governing Body for the second and subsequent period of five years was to be elected by the members of the Society at an Annual General Meeting. The members of the Governing Body were eligible for re-election. Under Clause 9, the Chairman was to preside over all meetings and in the absence of Chairman, the Vice Chairman and in absence of both, a person chosen from amongst members of the Governing Body present at such meeting. The quorum of such meeting of the Governing Body would be three. The annual general meeting of the Society would be held every year and the quorum was to consist 3/5th of the members of the Society. Under Clause 15 duties of office-bearers were given and sub clause-(c) provided that the Treasurer/Mission Superintendent would be appointed by Norwegian Evangelical Mission and would be over all Incharge and Co-ordinator of the work of the Mission in India. Under Clause 16 of the Rules and Regulations the funds for running expenses of the Society were to be received from the Board of Foreign Mission of Norwegian Evangelical Mission. Under Clause 17 duty of the Secretary of the Society was to send to the Registrar of Societies Registration, U.P. a list of persons, addresses and occupations of the Governing Body of the Society within fourteen days of the Annual General Meeting each year. 5. It has been alleged in the writ petition that Ms. Under Clause 17 duty of the Secretary of the Society was to send to the Registrar of Societies Registration, U.P. a list of persons, addresses and occupations of the Governing Body of the Society within fourteen days of the Annual General Meeting each year. 5. It has been alleged in the writ petition that Ms. Aase Jorgensen Chairman/Treasurer/Superintendent of the Society continued to remain so since its initial registration up to 2005-2006. The list of office-bearers of the Society for the year 2005-2006 with Ms. Aase Jorgensen as Chairman/Treasurer was duly registered in the office of the Respondent No. 2 on 1.9.2006. Ms. Aase Jorgensen being the old and weak in health brought an Agenda Item for election of Chairman/Treasurer of the Society which Agenda Item was voted upon in the Annual General Meeting on 30.9.2006. The petitioner No. 3, David S.K. Jai was elected as Chairman/Treasurer and Ashar Wahab was elected as Secretary. It is thereafter that the list of Governing Body members for the year 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 was submitted to the Assistant Registrar and was duly registered also. 6. However, for the year 2008-2009, a rival list of office-bearers was submitted with Ms. Anna Marie Grothe as Chairman/Treasurer and Ashar Wahab as Secretary of the Society, on the basis of the proceedings allegedly held on 19th of February, 2009. The Respondent No. 2 by the order dated 24th of March, 2009 registered the list of office-bearers sent by Ms. Anna Marie Grothe for the year 2008-2009. The petitioner No. 3 thereafter filed his objections which were rejected by the order dated 13th of May, 2009. The Respondent No. 2 in the order dated 13.5.2009 held that under Clause 15 of the Rules and Regulations the Treasurer/Mission Superintendent was to be appointed by the Board of Foreign NE Mission but subsequently all elections were to be held by the General Body of the Society. David S.K. Jai, the petitioner No. 3, who claimed to be Superintendent appointed by Board of Foreign Mission NEM could not file any original documents to show that he was so appointed as Superintendent of Mission, and was to act as ex-officio Chairman/Treasurer of the Society. 7. Also as per the Rules and Regulations of the Society in absence of the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman was to preside over all meetings of the Governing Body. Ms. 7. Also as per the Rules and Regulations of the Society in absence of the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman was to preside over all meetings of the Governing Body. Ms. Aase Jorgensen having left for Norway in 2006 itself the Vice Chairman Ms. Anna Marie Growthe started discharging the duties of Chairman and the Governing Body of the Society on 19.2.2009 recognized her as Chairman/Treasurer/Superintendent of Mission in India. 8. The Assistant Registrar had observed in his order dated 13.5.2009 that David S.K. Jai showed an annual meeting of General Body in the papers submitted by him to have been held on 27th of July, 2008 with R.K. Gupta and K.P. Yadav being present as members, whereas under Clause 1 of the Rules and Regulations only Christian could be members of the Society. The meeting dated 30.9.2006 of the Governing Body allegedly appointing David S.K. Jai as Chairman/Treasurer/Mission Superintendent has been denied to have ever been held and the signatures made on minutes of meeting have been disputed by all members saying that signatures were forged. Even in the papers submitted of annual general meeting proceedings dated 27th of July, 2008 under the signatures of Ms. Anna Marie Growthe differed from her original signatures. Under Rules and Regulations of the Society only Secretary could submit the list of office-bearers of the Governing Body and General Body to the Registrar for registration and said list was submitted by Ashar Wahab the Secretary on 7th of March, 2009, which list was duly registered on 24th of March, 2009. 9. Shri David S.K. Jai challenged the order dated 13th of May, 2009 passed by the Assistant Registrar in writ petition No. 39076 of 2009. This Court carefully examining the case of the petitioners that the Respondent No. 2 had passed the order dated 13.5.2009 without jurisdiction and he should have referred the dispute to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act having found two election proceedings by rival Committees of Management of the Society being submitted to him. This Court carefully examining the case of the petitioners that the Respondent No. 2 had passed the order dated 13.5.2009 without jurisdiction and he should have referred the dispute to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act having found two election proceedings by rival Committees of Management of the Society being submitted to him. This Court however found the case of petitioners therein i.e. Davi S.K. Jai as untenable in view of the law settled by Division Bench of this Court in Kisan Shiksha Sadan, Banksahi, District Basti and another v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur region, Gorakhpur and another, (1995) 2 UPLBEC 1242 and Committee of Management, Rashtriya Junior High School (Society) Babhaniyaon, District Jaunpur v. The Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi Region, Varanasi and others, (2005) 3 UPLBEC 2817. 10. This Court observed in its judgment and order dated 22.2.2010 that the Registrar or Assistant Registrar or Deputy Registrar as the case may be, in view of the powers given under Section 3-A and 4 of the Societies Registration Act had the power to look into genuine disputes regarding the membership and could examine whether any member has been given membership validly or not. It is only when membership of a person is duly recognized as valid and then a dispute arises with regard to his election as office-bearer, then, in that event the Registrar must under Section 25 (1) refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority. A dispute can only be referred if it is a bona fide and genuine dispute and the Registrar does not exercise his power in a mechanical manner but has to apply his mind to the facts of the case and take a decision. 11. This Court held that the Registrar will be quite justified to take into account all relevant circumstances and if an objection is raised about the membership of a person, it is the duty of Registrar for the purposes of the Act to inquire into the question whether the person concerned is a member of the Society or not. 12. In the said writ petition, this Court held that the Deputy Registrar had given cogent reasons for registering the list of office-bearers submitted by Ms. Anna Marie Growthe after examining the dispute in terms of the Rules and Regulations of the Society. 12. In the said writ petition, this Court held that the Deputy Registrar had given cogent reasons for registering the list of office-bearers submitted by Ms. Anna Marie Growthe after examining the dispute in terms of the Rules and Regulations of the Society. It was found that David S.K. Jai could not have held elections at all and since the membership of David S.K. Jai was disputed the election proceedings should not have been mechanically referred to the Prescribed Authority. However, this Court while dismissing the said writ petition observed that the petitioners therein i.e. David S.K. Jai should approach the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act in accordance with procedure prescribed therein. 13. Shri David S.K. Jai challenged the order passed by this Court on 22.2.2010 in said writ petition No. 39076 of 2009 by means of Special No. 370 of 2010. The Special Appeal was dismissed on 18.3.2010 with observations that the writ Court had given liberty to the appellants to approach the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act and therefore, there was no reason to interfere with the said direction. The petitioner No. 3 thereafter filed an Application under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act which was registered as O.S. No. 1 of 2010 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Karwi, District Chitrakoot. 14. The Prescribed Authority in its order dated 28.2.2014 after considering the objections of the respondents to the said Application rejected the said Application on the ground that the same was not maintainable. It was observed that the dispute had not been referred by the Assistant Registrar to the Prescribed Authority for it to decide. It was also observed in the order dated 28.2.2014 that the Application had not been signed by at least 1/4th members of the Society nor was any affidavit filed in support of the same. The order dated 28.2.2014 was not challenged by the petitioners any further and it attained finality. 15. It is the case of the petitioners that thereafter the Assistant Registrar approved the list of members of the Committee of Management of the Society submitted by Shri Ashar Wahab, Secretary, on 24.3.2014 without giving any opportunity of hearing. The order dated 28.2.2014 was not challenged by the petitioners any further and it attained finality. 15. It is the case of the petitioners that thereafter the Assistant Registrar approved the list of members of the Committee of Management of the Society submitted by Shri Ashar Wahab, Secretary, on 24.3.2014 without giving any opportunity of hearing. Against the registration of the list of members submitted by Ashar Wahab the petitioners filed an objection on 29.5.2014 and notice was issued by the respondent No. 2 on 13.2.2015 to both the parties i.e. to Respondent No. 3 Doris Anita Jai D/o Anna Marie Growthe and to the petitioner No. 3, David S.K. Jai. Replies were filed by both the parties and again a letter was issued on 3.5.2016 by the Respondent No. 2 seeking detailed information about the members of the Committee of Management. When no information was forthcoming from the petitioners the Respondent No. 2 passed the order dated 3.12.2016 which has been challenged in this writ petition. 16. It is the case of the petitioners that the order dated 3.12.2016 passed by the Assistant Registrar on 3.12.2016 is without jurisdiction and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The Respondent No. 2 instead of exercising the powers under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act of directing elections to be held of the Governing Body on the basis of the list submitted by Ms. Doris Anita Jai, should have referred the dispute to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act. The Respondent No. 2 had no right or authority to adjudicate the validity of the list of members where two parallel Committees of Management had been set up by two rival groups. 17. Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, at the time of argument had pointed out that the Rules and Regulations relating to the Society provided under Clause-15 that Treasurer/Mission Superintendent was to be appointed by the Board of Foreign Mission (NEM). Such Treasurer/Mission Superintendent was to be over all Incharge and Coordinator of the work of the Mission in India. He had to maintain all Books of Accounts and to conduct all business transactions with the Bank and other authorities on behalf of Mission in India. Such Treasurer/Mission Superintendent was to be over all Incharge and Coordinator of the work of the Mission in India. He had to maintain all Books of Accounts and to conduct all business transactions with the Bank and other authorities on behalf of Mission in India. As per Clause 16 funds for running the Society were to be received through the Board of Foreign Mission of NEM and till 2006 Ms. Aase Jorgensen was the Chairman and Treasurer of the Governing Body and also the Mission Superintendent. In September, 2006 due to her falling health and eye sight Ms. Aase Jorgensen proposed that the petitioner No. 3, Mr. David S.K. Jai, who was acting as Secretary and Manager of the Society, should be appointed as its Chairman/Treasurer and this proposal was accepted by the resolution of the Governing Body. On 30.9.2006 and on 30.9.2006 itself the Board of Foreign Mission (NEM) at Norway recognized Shri David S.K. Jai, the petitioner No. 3, as Mission Superintendent and Chairman and Treasurer of the Society. A copy of the letter allegedly issued in favour of the petitioner No. 3 by the Foreign Board of NEM on 30th of September, 2006 from Oslo (Wasko), Norway has been filed alongwith the writ petition. Similarly, such letters have been issued in favour of the petitioner No. 3 again on 22nd of July, 2009 and 21st of August, 2015 by the Foreign Mission which have been filed as Annexures to the writ petition. It has been submitted that these letters were filed as documentary evidence in support of the case of the petitioner No. 3 before the Respondent No. 2. Yet the Respondent No. 2 had disbelieved such documentary evidence only on the ground that the originals were not submitted and only photostat copies were submitted of these letters by the petitioner No. 3. 18. It has also been argued that the Respondent No. 3, Ms. Doris Anita Jai D/o Ms. Anna Marie Growthe was involved in illegally selling the properties of the Society in India and had also obtained permission from the District Magistrate allowing her to sell such properties Shri David S.K. Jai had filed writ petition challenging the such action of the District Magistrate. Doris Anita Jai D/o Ms. Anna Marie Growthe was involved in illegally selling the properties of the Society in India and had also obtained permission from the District Magistrate allowing her to sell such properties Shri David S.K. Jai had filed writ petition challenging the such action of the District Magistrate. After the Writ Petition - C No. 39809 of 2009 was disposed off by this Court on 12.10.2011 with a direction that it would be open to the petitioners to pursue the proceedings under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act and during the pendency of such proceedings both the parties would not transfer or in any way alienate or encumber the properties of the Society/Mission. It has also been argued that Shri David S.K. Jai has filed a civil suit for protecting the properties of the Mission in which an interim injunction was granted by the Civil Court forbidding Ms. Doris Anita Jai from alienating the properties of the Society. 19. In pursuance of the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition - C No. 39076 of 2009, and in Writ Petition - C No. 38909 of 2009 the petitioners approached the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act. The Prescribed Authority rejected the Reference on the ground of maintainability alone on 28.2.2014. Since the Respondent No. 2 thereafter registered the list of the members submitted by the Respondent No. 3, the petitioners filed their objections before the Respondent No. 2 and the Respondent No. 2 while deciding the said objections had exercised the powers given under Section 25(2) to the Registrar only and had recognized the list submitted by the Respondent No. 3 as duly registered list of undisputed valid members and had directed for elections to be held thereafter from amongst the members of this list alone. 20. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has referred other Rules and Regulations of the Society, namely, Clause 6, 9 and 10 to show that in absence of the Chairman it is the Vice Chairman who assumes the authority to conduct the meetings of General Body and oversee the elections of the Governing Body. Since Ms. Anna Marie Growthe was the Vice Chairman of the Society and the Respondent No. 3 is her daughter, therefore, almost all members of the Society had supported her case. Since Ms. Anna Marie Growthe was the Vice Chairman of the Society and the Respondent No. 3 is her daughter, therefore, almost all members of the Society had supported her case. They had filed affidavits in support of the claim of the Respondent No. 3 before the Respondent No. 2 and had seriously disputed any meeting held on 13.9.2006 allegedly electing the petitioner No. 3 as Chairman/Treasurer of the Society. 21. The Respondent No. 2 had, therefore, passed the order dated 13.5.2009 accepting the claim of the Respondent No. 3 as against the claim of the petitioner No. 3. This order dated 13.5.2009 was challenged in Writ Petition No. 39076 of 2009 but the writ petition was dismissed on 22.2.2010 by this Court. The order passed by the writ Court was affirmed in Special Appeal No. 370 of 2010 on 18.3.2010. 22. The petitioner No. 3 instead of filing a Reference under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act in the manner prescribed under law by gathering support of 1/4th members of the Society, filed a Reference of his own before the Prescribed Authority which was rightly rejected on the ground of maintainability by the Prescribed Authority on 28.2.2014. The order dated 28.2.2014 was not challenged and has attained finality, as also the order dated 13.5.2009, which was challenged but such challenge was defeated by writ Court as well as Appellate Court in writ petition and in Special Appeal. In so far as the allegation of petitioner No. 3 regarding the selling of properties of the Society by the Respondent No. 3 is concerned, the Civil Suit No. 138 of 2010 alleged to have been filed by the petitioner No. 3 has been dismissed in 2016 itself. 23. It has been further argued by the learned counsel for the Respondents that out of the valid membership list duly registered for the year 2015-2016, Ms. Anna Marie Growthe had died and the remaining twelve members of the General Body had held the election in which seven members of the Governing Body had been elected. Such elections having not been challenged by the petitioners, the writ petition had become infructuous and deserved to be dismissed as such. 24. Anna Marie Growthe had died and the remaining twelve members of the General Body had held the election in which seven members of the Governing Body had been elected. Such elections having not been challenged by the petitioners, the writ petition had become infructuous and deserved to be dismissed as such. 24. The counsel for the petitioners in rejoinder has submitted that the findings recorded by the Civil Court while dismissing the Civil Suit No. 138 of 2010, have been further challenged by the filing Civil Appeal before the District Judge which has been admitted. Besides, the deception or alienation of the properties of the Society is a separate issue altogether, and should not be looked into at this stage by this Court. The Respondents are only trying to prejudice this Court by referring to certain property disputes. The only issue raised before this Court is with regard to the validity of the order by the Assistant Registrar dated 3.12.2016 impugned in this writ petition passed in purported exercise of powers under Section 25 (2) of the Societies Registration Act. 25. Having heard the rival submissions and having perused the record of the writ petition and the order impugned, I find that the petitioner had invoked the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act by filing the O.S. No. 1 of 2010 which was dismissed on 28.2.2014 by the Prescribed Authority as being not maintainable. The order dated 28.2.2014 attained finality. 26. In the order dated 3.12.2016 it has been observed by the Respondent No. 2, on the basis of the papers submitted by both the parties, that under Section 15 of the Act 1860, a person can be admitted as a member of the Society who had paid a subscription or membership fee and whose subscription should not have been in arrears for a period exceeding three months. Sshri David S.K. Jai had submitted papers alleging 21 members to have been incorporated in 2014. A meeting was alleged by by Shri David S.K. Jai to have been held by the Governing Body on 7.8.2015 for removing the members who had either died or had resigned or were not attending the meetings of the General Body of the Society despite information being received by them, or were acting against the interest of the Society. In this meeting it has been alleged that Ms. In this meeting it has been alleged that Ms. Aase Jorgensen and Ms. Anna Marie Growthe having died their membership ceased automatically. Mr. P.C. Samuel having resigned his membership ceased. S/S Noor Jai, Deepak Jai, S.N. Nathniel having refused to attend the meetings despite notice and their memberships were also declared ceased. Shri Shasish Soni also refused to attend the meetings despite notice being published in newspapers and he also, ceased as member. Ms. Doris Anita Jai, Edvin B. Lall and Smt. B. Lall, Ashar Wahab were also removed as they were working against the interest of the Society. 27. The Respondent No. 2 has in the order impugned mentioned that in the meeting of the Governing Body allegedly held on 7.8.2014 in which all the members as aforesaid were removed, it is not clear as to who actually attended the same. Also David S.K. Jai, petitioner No. 3, had submitted that in the meeting dated 29.4.2016 fourteen new members were incorporated, and their membership fees was said to have been deposited on 15.9.2014 and 16.12.2014 and eight new members were said to have deposited their fees on 22.5.2016. 28. The Respondent No. 2 however found that in the meeting dated 22.5.2016 the membership of several members of the registration list of 2005-2006 was ceased as aforesaid and in the same meeting, membership of 21 new members was accepted, and eleven members out of these newly incorporated members were shown as to have been elected in the Governing Body. The Respondent No. 2 has observed that this meeting dated 22.5.2016 was allegedly held after notice was issued by the Registrar’s office by letter No. 3743 dated 13.2.2015, asking for clarifications and it could therefore not be believed that in the meeting held on 22.5.2016 the erstwhile members in the registered list of 2005-2006 were all removed and at one and the same time and also twenty two new members were incorporated. It has been observed by the Respondent No. 2 in his order that ordinarily, in other societies whenever new members are incorporated the meeting is attended by the then existing valid members. The existing valid members of the registered list of 2005-2006 having informed the respondent No. 2 that they did not attend the meeting dated 22.5.2016, it appeared that Mr. The existing valid members of the registered list of 2005-2006 having informed the respondent No. 2 that they did not attend the meeting dated 22.5.2016, it appeared that Mr. David alone attended the said meeting wherein he first declared the membership of the members of erstwhile valid list of 2005-2006 having ceased, and then incorporated new members in the Society and constituted a Governing Body of 11 members thereafter. The Registrar has further observed that in the meeting dated 15.9.2016 also the Rules and Regulations of the Society were amended and in this meeting too only those new members who had been incorporated on 22.5.2016 were shown as present. The Respondent No. 2 in the order dated 3.12.2016 has further observed that the meeting alleged to have been held on 22.5.2016 having twenty one members could not be believed to have been held validly because at least eight members out of these twenty one members have deposited the membership fee only on 25.5.2016. 29. The Assistant Registrar in the order impugned has observed that on the other hand, the list submitted by the Respondent No. 3, Ms. Doris Anita Jai, had been duly registered in the office of the Respondent No. 2 on 28.3.2014, after rejection of the Application submitted under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act by the Prescribed Authority on 28.2.2014. It has been observed by the Respondent No. 2 that it seems that after Mr. David S.K. Jai was removed from the membership of the Society in the meeting held for the said purpose by Ms. Doris Anita Jai and other members, Mr. David S.K. Jai manufactured documents regarding the meeting held in 2014 and 2015 and 2016, for removing all such valid members from the membership of the Society and for incorporating new members in the Society on his own only to create a doubt/dispute regarding the membership and continuance of the office-bearers of the said Society. Even the papers submitted by Shri David S.K. Jai alleging himself to have been appointed by the Foreign Mission could not be said to be original or supported by any documentary evidence. 30. The Respondent No. 2 has observed further that though Ms. Even the papers submitted by Shri David S.K. Jai alleging himself to have been appointed by the Foreign Mission could not be said to be original or supported by any documentary evidence. 30. The Respondent No. 2 has observed further that though Ms. Doris Anita Jai had also not submitted any documentary evidence to prove her case, nonetheless from the documents available in the office, it was evident that the list duly registered on 28.3.2014 contained names of Ms. Anna Marie Growthe, Mr. Edwin B. Lall, Mr. Ashar Wahab, Mr. Anil Bali, Mr. Vijay Sapkale, Mr. David S.K. Jai, Ms. Doris Anita Jai. Mr. Joshwa Jai, Ms. Mamta Milan and Ms. Adlien Lall, which list has not been set aside by any competent authority till date. Thus, the said list was to believed as genuine list of valid members and the respondent No. 2 has therefore further directed that the election of Governing Body should be conducted on the basis of the said valid list alone. 31. With regard to the registration of the membership list in exercise of power under Section 4 by the Assistant Registrar, the petitioner No. 3 had himself invoked the jurisdiction of the Respondent No. 2 by filing objections to the list submitted by the Respondent No. 3. The Respondent No. 3 as well as the petitioner No. 3 were issued notices by the Respondent No. 2 to which they submitted their written replies alongwith the documentary evidence and the Respondent No. 2 thereafter has found on the basis of the record in his office that the list registered on 24.3.2009 of the members and office-bearers of the Society for the year 2008-2009 by the Respondent No. 3 had already attained finality as the objections against the same filed by the petitioner No. 3 had been rejected by the order dated 13.5.2009. The order dated 13.5.2009 although challenged by the petitioner No. 3 by filing a writ petition was not set aside by this Court and it had also attained finality. It was thereafter that the petitioner No. 3 manufactured documentary evidence showing himself to be appointed by the Foreign Board of the Mission which documents were not submitted in original to show his appointment as Mission Superintendent and Chairman/Treasurer of the Society by the Foreign Board. 32. It was thereafter that the petitioner No. 3 manufactured documentary evidence showing himself to be appointed by the Foreign Board of the Mission which documents were not submitted in original to show his appointment as Mission Superintendent and Chairman/Treasurer of the Society by the Foreign Board. 32. Shri David S.K. Jai thereafter also manufactured documentary evidence with regard to the meetings allegedly held of the General Body and of the Governing Body of the Society initially removing the original members of the Society, and thereafter, allegedly incorporated the new members therein by amending the Regulations of the Society. Such members whose names were shown as being newly incorporated were incorporated in the year 2015 and 2016 after issuance of notice by the Assistant Registrar on 13.2.2015 asking for reply to certain objections made by the office of the Respondent No. 2. 33. Under Section 4-B of the Act of 1860 incorporated by amendment in the Act w.e.f. 9th October, 2013 the Assistant Registrar at the time of registration/renewal of the Society has the power to examine the correctness of the list of the members of the General Body of such a Society on the basis of the Register of members of a General Body, Minutes Book of the meeting of the Society, the Receipt Book of the membership fee, and the Bank Pass Book of the Society. If there is any change in the list of the members of the Society on account of induction, removal, registration or death of any member, the modified list of the members of the General Body can also be so examined by the Registrar. The modified list be filed with the Registrar is to be signed by at least two office-bearers and two executive members of the Society. In this case the list submitted by Shri David S.K. Jai was not signed by any of the old members of the Society who were still alive as all of them were either declared by Shri David S.K. Jai having ceased to be members of the General Body or were removed by Shri David S.K. Jai himself. 34. As such, the Respondent No. 2 was duly exercising the power under Section 4B when he examined the list submitted by the petitioner No. 3. However, in the order impugned the Respondent No. 2 has wrongly mentioned Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act. 34. As such, the Respondent No. 2 was duly exercising the power under Section 4B when he examined the list submitted by the petitioner No. 3. However, in the order impugned the Respondent No. 2 has wrongly mentioned Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act. Under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act the Registrar, if he finds that the elections of the Society have not been held by the Committee of Management in time, may take over the power of holding such elections and may thereafter direct some officer duly authorised by him to conduct such elections on the basis of valid membership list of the General Body, and in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the bye-laws of the Society for holding such election. If the Registrar has exercised his power under Section 25(2) for holding such elections, then, no other authority can exercise such power including the incumbent Committee of Management of the Society in question. 35. It is settled law that merely mentioning of a wrong provision or a Section of the Act at the time of exercising power, which could have been validly exercised otherwise by an officer, does not invalid or vitiate such an order. If the power exists under the Act and the Rules for an officer to act in a particular manner, mere wrong mention of a provision of the Act/Section under which such power is exercised would not invalidate such an order. 36. The observations in the order impugned with regard to the deposit of membership fee for newly incorporated members subsequent to their attending the meeting for removal of erstwhile valid members of the General Body of the Society a finding of fact has not been impugned in the writ petition. Petitioners have failed to file any documentary evidence or in fact, make any pleading in the writ petition to show such finding of fact to be perverse and not borne out from the record before the Respondent No. 2. This Court would, therefore, not interfere in the findings of fact recorded in the order impugned in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The only ground taken by the petitioners for challenging the order is that the Respondent No. 2 could not have passed the order under Section 25(2) of the Act. This Court would, therefore, not interfere in the findings of fact recorded in the order impugned in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The only ground taken by the petitioners for challenging the order is that the Respondent No. 2 could not have passed the order under Section 25(2) of the Act. This Court having held that such power could be exercised under amended Section 4(B) of the Act, the challenge is rejected. 37. No other ground being raised the writ petition, it is dismissed as being devoid of merits. 38. No order as to costs.