ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the order dated 06.06.2017, as contained under Annexure-3, passed by the Inspector General, Registration, Government of Jharkhand, is under challenge, whereby and whereunder the application submitted by the petitioner for on-line amendment of the body has been rejected and the application of the private respondent namely Akhilesh Singh Yadav has been decided to be uploaded. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he being the member of Jamshedpur Transport Welfare Association for which the election was conducted on 18.03.2013 and thereafter the details of election along with the constitution of the Executive Body, the President and the Secretary has been communicated before the I.G., Registration to act in pursuance to the provision as contained under Section 4/4A of the Society Registration Act, 1860, the Inspector General, Registration has acted upon the same and certificate to that effect was issued by him on 25.04.2014. Thereafter the grievance has been raised by the private respondent no.5 claiming there to be the President of the society legally elected by making a complaint before the I.G, Registration. The I.G., Registration in order to reach to the logical end with respect to the aforesaid complaint has directed the Deputy Commissioner to conduct an enquiry in this regard, in turn thereof, the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum directed the executive officer to get the matter enquired, in pursuance thereto, the Executive Magistrate, Apna Bazar has conducted an enquiry and submitted a report to the effect that the respondent no.5, who is claiming to be the President of the society is misusing the name of the aforesaid society since the society is not functioning in pursuance to its constitution and as such the same is illegal. It has been reported that the society running under the Presidentship of the petitioner since is working legally is the correct society. 3. It has been reported that the society running under the Presidentship of the petitioner since is working legally is the correct society. 3. Thereafter, the Inspector General, Registration has again directed the Deputy Commissioner to conduct a fresh enquiry, upon which, the Deputy Commissioner has directed the Additional Collector, East Singhbhum to conduct a fresh enquiry which report was submitted on 30.11.2015, wherein it has been reported that the Akhilesh group is having support of 72 members and functioning in accordance with law in a fair and transparent manner while on the other hand the faction led by the petitioner is having with less member and, as such, the same cannot be recognized and in view thereof, the I.G, Registration has adjudicated the issue by giving the legal sanctity of the society by holding therein that the society being run by the respondent no.5 is the correct one. Against the said order the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has raised the following issues: (i) The Society Registration Act, 1860- there is no adjudicatory power vested upon I.G, Registration. (ii) The I.G, Registration at the first instance has issued the certificate of registration in favour of the association which was led by the petitioner but subsequent thereto the same has been reversed and the sanctity of the society led by the respondent no.5 has been given legal status but before doing that no opportunity of hearing was given, hence there is violation of principles of natural justice. (iii) The Inspector General of Registration even though having no jurisdiction, has directed for conducting an enquiry, the first enquiry was in favour of the petitioner but without assigning any reason or without any difference note, he has directed for second enquiry and basis upon which the impugned order has been passed, therefore, there is totally non application of the mind on the part of Inspector General of Registration. (iv) The respondent no.5 was member of the society up to the year 2009 by virtue of holding the post of Manager in a transport corporation but the said transport corporation having been closed sometime in the year 2009, therefore, he ceases to be a member of the association and when he was not a member he cannot be elected as a member of the society. 5. Mr. 5. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned G.A for the State has argued out the case on the strength of the counter affidavit, which has been filed after being called upon by this Court. 6. He has submitted that the Inspector General, Registration has reviewed its decision looking to the factual aspect by exercising the power as conferred under Section 4/4A of the Society Registration Act, 1860. 7. His submission is that when there are fight amongst two factions of the society, I.G, Registration cannot be said to be act mechanically rather when he has issued a certificate of registration it is incumbent upon him to look into the record pertaining to the election of the society. Initially although the certificate has been issued in favour of the society which was led by the petitioner as in capacity of President but subsequent thereto when the complaint was made by the respondent no.5, the entire things have been scrutinized by directing the subordinate district authorities to conduct enquiry and on the basis of the same the impugned decision has been passed, holding therein that the group led by the respondent no.5 is the proper society. 8. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel in response has submitted that there is no dispute about the fact that I.G., Registration has been conferred with the power to issue certificate of registration in exercise of power conferred under Section 4/4A of the Society Registration Act, 1860 but he cannot be adjudicatory authority if there is dispute in two factions in absence of the power to that effect provided under the statute. 9. He submits that in the entire Societies Act, there is no adjudicatory power conferred to the I.G, Registration to adjudicate the dispute in between two factions but without appreciating this aspect of the matter the I.G, Registration has adjudicated the dispute hence the same is without jurisdiction. 10. The petitioner has taken aid of the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C). No. 2045 of 2014. 11. However, Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned G.A has filed a counter affidavit but he has insisted upon this Court that this aspect of the matter he will examine, and if necessary will file supplementary counter affidavit. 12. Let notice be issued upon the respondent no.5 under registered post with A/D as well as ordinary process, for which requisites etc. 11. However, Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned G.A has filed a counter affidavit but he has insisted upon this Court that this aspect of the matter he will examine, and if necessary will file supplementary counter affidavit. 12. Let notice be issued upon the respondent no.5 under registered post with A/D as well as ordinary process, for which requisites etc. must be filed within a week. 13. List this case after four weeks on 04.04.2019. I.A. No.9991 of 2018 14. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for stay of operation of the order dated 06.06.2017, prayer has been sought for in view of the order passed by the District Co-operative Officer, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum dated 13.10.2018 whereby and whereunder it has been directed to vacate the premises where the office of the Jamshedpur Transport Welfare Association is functioning. 15. This Court after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner wherein the issue of jurisdiction has been raised, the said aspect of the matter has been examined by the learned Government Advocate who has fairly submitted that save and except the provision of Section 13 there is no provision conferring power upon the I.G. Registration to adjudicate upon the dispute between two factions, he, however, submits that Section 13 will not be applicable for the reason that the said section stipulates in a case of dissolution and after dissolution the adjustment of its affairs but that is not the case here, rather the case herein the dispute in between two factions. 16. In that view of the matter this Court after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner is of the view that the authority can exercise the power, if provided under the statute and so far as the adjudication of dispute in between the factions, the parties are to be adjudicated, if provided power under the statute. 17. Similar view has been taken in the case of All India Council & Anr. Vrs. Assistant Registrar Firms Societies and Chits Varanasi Region Varanasi and Anr. reported in AIR (1988) Allahabad 236. 18. 17. Similar view has been taken in the case of All India Council & Anr. Vrs. Assistant Registrar Firms Societies and Chits Varanasi Region Varanasi and Anr. reported in AIR (1988) Allahabad 236. 18. However, the judgment has been rendered in the case of U.P Cooperative Society but looking to the ratio of the said case the petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case in his favour and if the interim order would not be passed the petitioner will suffer since the balance of convenience lies in his favour for the reason stated above. 19. In view thereof, this Court thinks it just and proper to pass an interim order to the effect to maintain status quo, as exists today, till the next date of listing i.e. 04.04.2019. 20. Accordingly, I.A.9991 of 2018 stands disposed of.