JUDGMENT : 1. The writ appeals stand with applications to grant leave to appeal against the orders of the learned single Judge in WP.No.1191 of 2018 dated 18.01.2018 and IA.No.1 of 2018 in WP.No.16816of.2018 dated 02.05.2018 respectively. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the official respondents in the light of the materials on record. 3. Leave granted in both the appeals. Delay condoned in preferring appeal against order in WP.No.1191 of 2018. 4. In the light of the backdrop of the rival pleadings, it can be seen that the Pragathi Educational Society (hereinafter ‘Society’. tor short) is a Society with Registration No.378/2001 registered with the District Registrar, Narasaraopet Division, Guntur District under the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001 (‘Act’ for short). 5. The two writ petitions are piloted by two rival group members of the society. WP.No.1191 of 2018 was filed before the learned single Judge in the wake of alleged refusal’ of the District Registrar to act on’ the annual list provided by the persons, who are interested as petitioners in that writ petition. The learned single Judge directed that the list has to be dealt with in accordance with Section 9 of the Act and the said list was directed to be taken up. Pending application for leave to appeal against that order, the rival group filed WP.No.16816 of 2018 in which also certain direction is issued. 6. The controversy through these two writ appeals with applications seeking leave to appeal is as to what would be the efficacy of the orders issued by the learned single Judge and also whether those orders are eligible to stand on the basis of the provisions of the Act and the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Section 9 of the Act provides for filing of annual list. It says that every year the society shall, within 15 days from the date of which the General Body Meeting was held, furnish a list to the Registrar of Societies, which shall contain the names and address of the members of the Managing Committee and the officers entrusted with the management of the affairs of the society. It says that every year the society shall, within 15 days from the date of which the General Body Meeting was held, furnish a list to the Registrar of Societies, which shall contain the names and address of the members of the Managing Committee and the officers entrusted with the management of the affairs of the society. The statutory obligation of a registered society to file annual list in terms of Section 9 of the Act is not coupled with any duty, power or responsibility with the Registrar to adjudicate on any controversy or disputes arising out of the contents of the materials so filed. Obviously, therefore, the direction of the learned single Judge in WP.No.1191 of 2018 to take up the list filed by or on behalf of the petitioner in that case would only have such efficacy as to ensure that the said list has to be on record with the Registrar. 8. The subsequent writ petition is instituted, after the petitioner in the said writ petition had applied for leave to appeal against the order in WP.No.1191 of 2018, however, without disclosing the order in WP.No.1191 of 2018. The learned counsel for the petitioner in WP.No.1191 of 2018 argued for the position that WP.No.16816 of 2018 is liable to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts and no relief ought to have been granted in that writ petition. We notice that the order issued in WP.No.16816 of 2018 is also not something beyond a direction to maintain the list with the Registrar, in terms of Section 9 of the Act, as interpreted in paragraph No.7 above. 9. As of now, the list provided by the petitioner in WP.No.1191 of 2018 is maintained with the Registrar and the list filed by the petitioner in WP.No.16816 of 2018 is also with the Registrar. In terms of the contents of Section 9 of the Act, the Registrar has no jurisdiction to decide any dispute between any of the members of the society or any group of members of that society. See for support: MUSLIM WELFARE SOCIETY v. ASST. REGISTRAR OF FIRMS, SOCIETIES AND CHITS, VARANASI [ AIR 1992 ALL 43 ]. 10. Section 23 of the Act provides for resolution of dispute regarding management. It reads as follows: “23. See for support: MUSLIM WELFARE SOCIETY v. ASST. REGISTRAR OF FIRMS, SOCIETIES AND CHITS, VARANASI [ AIR 1992 ALL 43 ]. 10. Section 23 of the Act provides for resolution of dispute regarding management. It reads as follows: “23. Dispute regarding management - In the event of any dispute arising among the Committee or the members of the society, in respect of any matter relating to the affairs of the society, any member of the society may proceed with the dispute under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (Central Act 26 of 1996) or may file an application in the District Court concerned and the said Court shall after necessary inquiry pass such order as it may deem fit.” 11. The controversies between the parties before us are in respect of matters relating to the Society, including disputes arising among members touching the membership, constitution of management committee and the officers who are entrusted with the management and the affairs of the Society. Therefore, if there is any dispute as to the correctness of the list of members, which is to be furnished to the Registrar in terms of Section 9 of the Act, or if there is a ny dispute relating to the identity of the persons, who are the members of the managing committee and officers entrusted with the management of the affairs of the Society, all such disputes can be resolved only by recourse to Section 23 of the Act, which provides a duel mode for disputes resolution; that is to say, by taking recourse to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 or by recourse to adjudication by the District Court under Section 23 of the Act itself. 12. In the aforesaid view of the legal provisions, these appeals are ordered directing that the Registrar shall not decide any dispute relating to the contents of the list furnished by either side, but will continue to keep on register; the list furnished to that Officer at the earlier point of time in terms of the directions issued by this Court’ i.e. the list furnished by the petitioner in WP.No.1191 of 2018; which list will also be subject to the finality of any proceedings which the parties may take recourse to under Section 23 of the Act, as may be advised. WP.No.16816 of 2018 is closed as unnecessary. WP.No.16816 of 2018 is closed as unnecessary. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.