JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri H.N. Singh learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rahul Mishra for the contesting private respondents. 2. The petitioners impugn the order dated 17 March 2020 passed by the Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, the second respondent herein. In terms of the aforesaid order the second respondent has recalled his order of 3 July 2018 registering the list of office bearers of the Society for the year 2018-19. The order essentially accepts the objections taken by the private respondents denying and refuting their alleged resignations and the consequential changes in the list which came to be registered. 3. The private respondents who were office bearers are stated to have submitted their resignations which came to be accepted by the Society and an amended list of office bearers consequently submitted and registered on 3 July 2018. The private respondents thereafter approached the second respondent alleging that the proceedings of the Society stated to have been held on 7 November 2017 and 10 April 2018 were forged and a fabrication of the records. It was alleged that their signatures on the resignation letters and the affidavits submitted in connection therewith were forgeries and that they had never tendered their resignations as alleged. It is this dispute which fell for adjudication before the second respondent and has culminated in the passing of the impugned order. 4. Sri Singh learned senior counsel appearing in support of the writ petitioners contends that the second respondent has clearly transgressed the jurisdiction conferred upon him under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] in proceeding to rule upon the validity or otherwise of the resignation of the respondents. It is his submission that once a dispute of the present nature arose before the second respondent, it was incumbent upon him to refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority for adjudication under Section 25 of the Act. It was further submitted that once the list had been registered by the Assistant Registrar, no power stood vested upon him to recall or review that action and on this ground also the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. It was further submitted that once the list had been registered by the Assistant Registrar, no power stood vested upon him to recall or review that action and on this ground also the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. Sri Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent, refuting those submissions contended that once it was brought to the attention of the second respondent that fraud had been committed, he had the inherent power to recall his order registering the list of office bearers. He further submitted that the private respondents had categorically denied having resigned from their offices before the Assistant Registrar and in view thereof he was fully justified in delving into that issue. Sri Mishra has taken the Court through the order impugned to contend that the private respondents had categorically denied having resigned from their offices or having appended their signatures on any letter or affidavit submitted in connection therewith. He would thus submit that the Assistant Registrar was clearly justified in recalling his earlier order. It is these rival submissions which fall for determination. 6. Before the Court it is not disputed that where a serious or substantial dispute with regard to election or continuance of an office bearer or member of a Society arises, it is incumbent upon the Assistant Registrar to refer the matter for the consideration of the Prescribed Authority in terms of the provisions made in Section 25 of the Act. The forum created in terms of Section 25 in facts deals specifically with such disputes and issues. Viewed in that sense the Assistant Registrar has a limited role to play while registering a list of office bearers that may be submitted before him for registration. The role and the jurisdiction assigned to the Assistant Registrar in this regard stands duly enumerated in Sections 4, 4A and 4B of the Act. However, and as is well settled, the Assistant Registrar is not envisaged to act as a mere rubber stamp liable to accept and register all or any returns that may be presented before him. While registering a list, it is incumbent upon the Assistant Registrar to summarily scrutinise the documents submitted in order to examine their veracity and to ensure a compliance with the statutory requirements placed by the Act and the Byelaws of the society. While registering a list, it is incumbent upon the Assistant Registrar to summarily scrutinise the documents submitted in order to examine their veracity and to ensure a compliance with the statutory requirements placed by the Act and the Byelaws of the society. The limited jurisdiction which stands conferred upon the Registrar at this juncture also does not require him to undertake a detailed or in depth enquiry or enter the arena of a definitive adjudication. 7. Notwithstanding the limited scope of the jurisdiction which the Assistant Registrar has been recognised to wield at this stage, the Courts have also taken the consistent view that in a case where forgery or fabrication is alleged or where it be found ex facie that the documents are not compliant with the statutory requirements placed under the Act, he would be well within his right to refuse to register the returns upon being duly satisfied in that regard. Fraud and fabrication as has been repeatedly said unravel the most solemn of acts. Viewed in that sense the Assistant Registrar theoretically and in principle must be held empowered to examine such allegations albeit bearing in mind the constraints of the summary character of the jurisdiction which is otherwise conferred upon him. 8. The limited question which consequently arises for consideration in the present petition is whether fraud or forgery had been duly established impelling the Registrar to recall the act of recordal of the return submitted by the petitioners. As this Court reads the order impugned it finds that the second respondent has failed to record or return any conclusive or authoritative findings on this score. 9. The Assistant Registrar while taking note of the allegation of the private respondents in this respect seems to have been swayed by the fact that the letters of resignation were undated and appeared to have been accepted belatedly. While holding that the genuineness of the signatures of the respondents on the alleged letters of resignation would be a question which would have to be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction, he proceeds to refer to a perceived facial discrepancy in the signatures of the respondents as appearing on the resignation letter and the affidavits submitted by them. The finding on this aspect as with others is described as “prima facie”, “doubtful” and “dubious”. 10. The finding on this aspect as with others is described as “prima facie”, “doubtful” and “dubious”. 10. However a finding of fraud or forgery cannot be sustained or rest on such a nebulous pedestal. A prima facie view cannot sustain an allegation of fraud or fabrication. Mere suspicion or scepticism cannot be recognised in law as sufficient parameters to uphold allegations of fraud. Bearing in mind the seriousness of such an allegation, they must be established conclusively and found to have been definitively committed. “Prima facie”, an oft utilised phrase, merely means an impression gathered or an opinion formed on first impressions and initial observation. A prima facie view by its very nature requires and mandates a further enquiry and examination before a definitive ruling or finding can be entered. 11. In the considered view of this Court, the doubt or uncertainty which the Assistant Registrar harboured cannot be countenanced in law to warrant an “inherent power” of recall or review being exercised quite apart from being clearly insufficient to sustain an allegation of fraud and fabrication. The Court is of the firm opinion that if the Assistant Registrar was prima facie satisfied with regard to the allegation of fraud and fabrication or if he were of the opinion that the circumstances surrounding the alleged resignation of the respondents cast a credible doubt on a resignation in fact having been tendered, the only course of action available to him was to refer parties to the Prescribed Authority. 12. The Prescribed Authority constituted under Section 25 of the Act, as is manifest from a reading of that provision, is empowered to rule not just upon disputes connected with elections but also consider questions relating to the right of “continuance” of office bearers or members of a society. Resignation, therefore, was clearly a question which related to the continuance of the private respondents as office bearers of the Society. For the aforesaid reasons the Court finds itself unable to sustain the order impugned. 13. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 17 March 2020 is hereby quashed and set aside. The Assistant Registrar is directed to refer the issue of the alleged resignation of the private respondents for the consideration of the Prescribed Authority in accordance with the provisions made in Section 25 of the 1860 Act. 13. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 17 March 2020 is hereby quashed and set aside. The Assistant Registrar is directed to refer the issue of the alleged resignation of the private respondents for the consideration of the Prescribed Authority in accordance with the provisions made in Section 25 of the 1860 Act. The Prescribed Authority shall endeavour to conclude proceedings with due notice to all concerned parties with expedition and preferably within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a duly authenticated copy of this order.