JUDGMENT : Sangeeta Chandra, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri M.B. Singh, Sri G.M. Kamil for the private respondents and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 24.7.2015 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Faizabad, by which, he has accepted the elections allegedly held by respondent Nos. 9 and 10 on 8.3.2015 and has rejected the election proceedings submitted by the petitioners held on 4.3.2015. 3. The writ petition was amended later on and a prayer has been made to quash the order dated 16.1.2015 passed by the Deputy Registrar, accepting the membership list of respondent Nos. 9 and 10. 4. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No. 1 is a Society by the name of Madarsa Arabiya Ahle Sunnat Nurul Uloom, Mohalla and Post Kanehti, Tehsil and District Sultanpur, registered on 13.3.1985 bearing File No. I-81029, At the time of registration, one Mohd. Jahid Khan was the President and Mohd. Jama Khan was the Secretary. The renewal of the Society continued on the basis of papers filed by these two, persons. One Mohd. Shamshad Khan, respondent No. 8 thereafter moved an application on 9.1.1997 for renewal of the Society and also for amendment of the Bye-laws. One Waseem Khan in the capacity of Manager also moved an application on 18.3.1997. Since there was some change in the General Body and the Committee of Management of the Society, the Deputy Registrar issued notice and thereafter accepted the list submitted by Mohd. Shamshad Khan under section 4 of the Act and registered it for the year 1996-97. 5. The membership of Mohd. Shamshad Khan has not been disputed by the petitioners as decided by the order of the Deputy Registrar dated 13.1.2010 and the list submitted by Mohd. Shamshad Khan came to be accepted upto the year 2009-10. There were 51 undisputed members in the said list. 6. However, without any further circulation of Agenda for induction of new members, nine new members were inducted in the General Body of the Society. A dispute was raised by the petitioner No. 2, who was earlier functioning in the same Society in the capacity of Treasurer. The said dispute related to the list of General Body members submitted for the year 2013-14 by Mohd. Shamshad Khan. A dispute was raised by the petitioner No. 2, who was earlier functioning in the same Society in the capacity of Treasurer. The said dispute related to the list of General Body members submitted for the year 2013-14 by Mohd. Shamshad Khan. On 16.1.2015, the Deputy Registrar passed, the order impugned, accepting the list submitted by Mohd. Shamshad Khan on the ground that it had been duly published in the newspaper "Tarun Mitra" and objections were invited thereon, but no objections were forthcoming. 7. On the basis of such acceptance of list of 60 members on 16.1.2015, the order impugned dated 24.7.2015 has been passed by the Deputy Registrar, saying that the list of General Body members of the Society having been accepted by him and Agenda being circulated on 25.2.2015, elections were held on 8.3.2015 by Mohd. Shamshad Khan, which elections have been accepted to have been held by 36 members out of 60 members of the General Body by filing affidavits in this regard on 1.7.2015 before the Deputy Registrar. 8. One another ground for acceptance of such elections alleged to be held on 8.3.2015 taken by the Deputy Registrar is that the said election was allegedly supervised by the Block Development Officer, who had been nominated as an Observer by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. 9. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners on the basis of Annexures filed in the writ petition that when the list was submitted of General Body members allegedly inducted by respondent No. 8, it did not carry the signatures of two office bearers and two members as required under the amended provisions of the Societies Registration Act. It has also been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that in the original list submitted for the year 2012-13, the petitioner had signed as Treasurer of the Society alongwith one other office bearer and two ordinary members. 10. It has been submitted further by the learned Counsellor the petitioners that the list of the year 2012-13 that has been filed as Annexure to the writ petition, also shows that it is manually typed, whereas the list that was submitted by respondent No. 9 thereafter, inducting nine other members, has been typed by a computer. 10. It has been submitted further by the learned Counsellor the petitioners that the list of the year 2012-13 that has been filed as Annexure to the writ petition, also shows that it is manually typed, whereas the list that was submitted by respondent No. 9 thereafter, inducting nine other members, has been typed by a computer. It has further been submitted that when this list was submitted, the Deputy Registrar asked the respondent No. 9 to publish the same in widely circulated daily newspapers viz. "Dainik Jagran", "Hindustan" or "Aaj" by his letter dated 25.11.2014. However, the list was actually published and objections were invited only in Newspaper "Tarun Mitra", which is not widely circulated in District Sultanpur, therefore, the petitioners did not come to know about the publication and thereafter registration of the list on 16.1.2015. When the petitioners actually came to know, they filed their objections to the same on 13.2.2015 and 20.2.2015. The Deputy Registrar on the complaint submitted by the petitioners, issued notice on 3.3.2015 and started hearing the objections. In the meantime, four years' tenure of the Committee of Management expired and elections were held by the petitioners on 4.3.2015 and by the private respondents on 8.3.2015. 11. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that it is apparent from the order dated 16.1.2015 and the correspondence undertaken between the parties before the Deputy Registrar that it was not in accordance with the provisions of section 4-B of the amended Act. The factors as mentioned under section 4-B of the amended Act were not taken into account and only the Cash Book and Receipt Book alongwith publication of notice in the newspaper were taken into account, whereas under section 4-B of the Act introduced in October, 2013, the Deputy Registrar was bound to look into the Agenda Registrar and Proceedings Register also to verify that the Agenda was circulated for induction of new members and proceedings were held and then membership fee was deposited in the Bank Account of the Committee of Management as would be evident from the Passbook. 12. It has further been submitted that although there is a mention in the order dated 24.7.2015 that the elections held on 8.3.2015 by the respondent Nos. 12. It has further been submitted that although there is a mention in the order dated 24.7.2015 that the elections held on 8.3.2015 by the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 had been supervised by the Block Development Officer, who had been nominated as Observer by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, the petitioners had filed an application under the Right to Information Act and the office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had provided the information to the effect that no record relating to any order, nominating the Block Development Officer to supervise the elections, existed in his office. 13. It has also been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that when two rival Committees of Management had setup their elections, it should have been appropriate for the Deputy Registrar to have referred the matter under section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act. Under the Societies Registration Act, the Prescribed Authority could look into the continuance of office bearers in case of disputed elections and could also look into the acceptance of nomination papers or votes etc. The Deputy Registrar exceeded his jurisdiction in accepting the elections setup by the respondent Nos. 9 and 10. 14. Sri G.M. Kamil, appearing for the private respondents, on the other hand, has pointed out a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of A.P. Aboobaker Musaliar v. District Registrar 2004 (11) SCC 247 , where the Supreme Court had accepted the Division Bench judgment of the High Court, which had observed as follows: "3. ..................."Thus, in the case of a dispute when more than one return is filed, the Registrar has got the power to find out as to which one he should accept. There may not be an elaborate enquiry. Prima facie he has to satisfy as to which return is to be accepted. In this case, we find that the list given by the appellant was accepted, because it had the support of Court orders and also it was being followed for a large number of years. No doubt, such an enquiry made by the Registrar and the decision taken from it does not become final. The party can take up the matter before a Competent Court as to who are the members of the governing body." 15. No doubt, such an enquiry made by the Registrar and the decision taken from it does not become final. The party can take up the matter before a Competent Court as to who are the members of the governing body." 15. It was observed by the Supreme Court that the Division Bench had rightly decided the issue as to whether the Registrar had power under section 4 of the Act to take a decision With regard to the annual list submitted by the Committee of Management of the Society. Moreover, the enquiry made by the Registrar and the decision taken did not become final and the party could take up the matter before the Competent Court as to who were the valid members of the Governing Body. 16. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the private respondents that appropriate remedy for the petitioners in this case lay before the Civil Court, if they were disputing the membership list as accepted by the Deputy Registrar by his order dated 16.1.2015. It has also been submitted that the elections of 8.3.2015 having been accepted, the tenure of the Committee of Management being only four years as per the Bye-laws, the same expired on 7.3.2019 and the dispute has become infructuous, therefore, this Court should not interfere in the same and relegate the petitioners to the appropriate remedy before the Competent Court. 17. It has also been submitted by Sri G.M. Kamil that in view of possibilities of the elections being disturbed by the petitioners and others, who were supporting them, the respondent No. 8 had made an application to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Sadar, District Sultanpur for appointing an official Observer for the elections due to be held on 8.3.2015. On the said application, dated 5.3.2015, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had written on the margin itself that the Block Development Officer and the Station Officer, Baldirai should ensure maintenance of law and order during the elections. A copy of such application alongwith note made on the margin by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 5.3.2015, has been filed as Annexure-5 to the counter-affidavit filed by the private respondents. 18. A copy of such application alongwith note made on the margin by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 5.3.2015, has been filed as Annexure-5 to the counter-affidavit filed by the private respondents. 18. In response to the argument made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Agenda allegedly circulated on 25.2.2015 did not show as to for what purpose, the General Body meeting was called on 8.3.2015, learned Counsel for the private respondents has referred to Annexure-4 to his counter-affidavit, which is a handwritten note made on some Register, which gives three points for consideration as Agenda Items, which included the ratification of Minutes of the earlier meeting and the elections of Committee of Management and any other Item that could have been raised with the prior permission of the President of the Society. It has been submitted that it was this Agenda that was in fact circulated and it was served on the members of the Society as their signatures have been obtained on the right hand side of the said Register. 19. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that these were not the proceedings that were submitted before the Deputy Registrar. The Deputy Registrar has relied upon the Agenda dated 25.2.2015, which was allegedly circulated for a General Body meeting held on 8.3.2015. It has also been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that in case the election proceedings held on 8.3.2015 were in fact supervised by the Block Development Officer or were held in the presence of Police, the said fact should have been mentioned in the election proceedings, which is apparent that it was not. He has read out the relevant Minutes of the meeting of the General Body, which was submitted as election proceedings before the Deputy Registrar. 20. This Court is not going into the merits of the decision taken by the Deputy Registrar as it would prejudice either of the parties when they appear before the Deputy Registrar. 21. He has read out the relevant Minutes of the meeting of the General Body, which was submitted as election proceedings before the Deputy Registrar. 20. This Court is not going into the merits of the decision taken by the Deputy Registrar as it would prejudice either of the parties when they appear before the Deputy Registrar. 21. This Court is only concerned with the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that when the membership list was itself disputed as it was not the membership list of longstanding and hearing was initiated thereon by the Deputy Registrar on the complaint made by the petitioners, then the said list could not have been relied upon to accept the election proceedings submitted by respondent Nos. 8 and 9. The Deputy Registrar, taking into account the highly disputed General Body membership list, should have referred the matter to the Prescribed Authority under section 25(1) of the Act. 22. This Court has considered the fact that the list that was submitted by Mohd. Shamshad Khan as Manager of the Society for the past several years contained only 51 names and the said list was duly verified by the petitioners, who were the office bearers and Treasurer of the Committee of Management at that time. Later on, nine members were inducted, which list was seriously disputed, therefore, the judgment rendered in the case of A.P. Aboobaker Musaliar (supra) relied upon by the learned Counsel for the private respondents would not apply in this case. 23. It has been settled by two Division Benches of this Court that the provisions of section 4 of the Act and the powers of the Registrar therein are completely different than the powers under section 25 of the Act. Whenever a dispute regarding election of a Society or continuance of office bearers thereof is raised, the remedy lies under section 25(1) of the Act, it cannot be gone into under the proviso to section 4 of the Act. Wherever an application for taking on record the names of office bearers is filed and an objection is raised as to validity or otherwise of the office bearers, who are duly elected or not and the said objections are taken on record by the Deputy Registrar, the Deputy Registrar should refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority under section 25(1) of the Act. 24. 24. The order passed by the Deputy Registrar, accepting one Committee of Management or one proceedings of election over other is without jurisdiction. Reference can be made to. Gram Shiksha Sudhar Samiti, Junior High School, Sikandra, District Kanpur Dehat and another v. Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, U.P. Lucknow and others 2010 (82) ALR 421 and Committee of Management, Anjuman Kherul Almin Allahganj and another v. State of U.P. and others 2014 (102) ALR 447. 25. A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Committee of Management, Church City Junior High School and another v. State of U.P. and others (2012) 4 UPLBEC 3151 : 2013 (96) ALR 30 (Sum.), has considered the law and held that under section 25(1) of the Act, the dispute regarding continuance of office bearers of a Society is liable to be referred to the Prescribed Authority and he alone can decide the same. This Court had set aside the order of the Deputy Registrar wherein he accepted the elections setup by one Committee of Management over that of the other. 26. This Court has also found that the order dated 16.1.2015, which has been passed by the Deputy Registrar, accepting the list of General Body members as submitted by the private respondents on 25.11.2014 is vitiated as it does not satisfy the factors as mentioned in section 4-B of the amended Societies Registration Act. 27. The order dated 16.1.2015 is set aside. Since the order dated 24.7.2015 is based on the order dated 16.1.2015, it is also set aside. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Registrar to first determine the membership list, taking into account all factors as mentioned under section 4-B of the Act and thereafter, he shall publish a tentative list of General Body members and invite objections thereon and fix a date for holding elections in terms of the Bye-laws of the Society. After the Deputy Registrar has finalized the membership list and fixed a date for holding of elections, in case he is unable to proceed with the General Body meeting, he may nominate some officer. 28. The entire exercise for determination of membership list and the finalization of voter list thereafter by the Deputy Registrar, shall be completed within a period of three months from the date, a certified copy of this order is produced before him. 28. The entire exercise for determination of membership list and the finalization of voter list thereafter by the Deputy Registrar, shall be completed within a period of three months from the date, a certified copy of this order is produced before him. None of the parties to the dispute shall seek necessary adjournments. 29. The writ petition is partly allowed to this extent only.