JUDGMENT : This is a respondent's appeal arising out of a judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition. 2. The Committee of Management, Madrasa Arbia Azizia Majaharool Uloom, Nichlaul Bazar, District Maharajganj has its affairs torn by factional war. One faction is represented by Abid Ali, who claims to be the lawfully elected Manager, whereas the other is represented by Muhammadullah. 3. Madrasa Arbia Azizia Majaharool Uloom, Nichlaul Bazar, District Maharajganj is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (for short, 'the Act'). It was registered on 18.4.1975. The Society is governed by its bylaws. The Society maintains an educational institution. The institution that the Society maintains is funded by the State. The Society has a General Body and a Committee of Management. The tenure of the Committee of Management is three years under the bylaws. Bylaw 23 provides for the various office bearers, who are to be elected from amongst the Members of the General Body. The office bearers are the President, the Vice President, the Manager, the Deputy Manager, besides members of the Committee. Bylaw 26 provides for the contingency, where elections to the Committee of Management cannot be held on schedule and within three years of the last elections. It provides for a holding over in favour of the office bearers of the last elected management till their successors are elected. 4. It is the petitioners' case, who are respondent Nos. 4 to 6 to this appeal, that the last undisputed elections to the Committee of Management were held on 7.10.2018. In those elections, Muhammadullah, the appellant here, was elected the Manager whereas Iltaf Husain, respondent No. 6 to the appeal, was elected the Vice President. The list of office bearers of the Committee of Management elected on 7.10.2018 was duly registered under Section 4 of the Act by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur. It is the petitioner-respondents' case that the appellant, who is effectively Muhammadullah, designed to grab control of the Society. For the purpose, he claimed that he had called a meeting of the General Body on 16.11.2019 for amending the bylaws of the Society. He moved an application on 29.2.2020 before the Assistant Registrar of Societies asking the amended bylaws to be registered. For the purpose, he claimed that he had called a meeting of the General Body on 16.11.2019 for amending the bylaws of the Society. He moved an application on 29.2.2020 before the Assistant Registrar of Societies asking the amended bylaws to be registered. The petitioner-respondents claimed that the Assistant Registrar without issuing notice to all members of the General Body and without following the procedure envisaged for registering an amendment to the bylaws of the Society, registered the amended bylaws on 5.3.2020. 5. The petitioner-respondents then say that by concealing facts, Muhammadullah submitted a forged and fabricated list of office bearers to the Assistant Registrar, seeking its registration under Section 4 of the Act. The petitioner-respondents upon coming to know of the aforesaid fact, filed objections dated 13.7.2021 before the Assistant Registrar. It is the petitioner-respondents' case that upon coming to know of the amendments unauthorizedly made by Muhammadullah, petitioner-respondent No. 6, Iltaf Husain, as the Vice President of the Society, invoked his powers under Clause 23 of the bylaws and convened an emergent meeting of the Committee of Management on 25.9.2020. It is pleaded on behalf of the petitioner-respondents that the agenda for the meeting convened on 25.9.2020 was issued to all members of the General Body in accordance with the bylaws. The meeting of the Committee of Management held on 25.9.2020 was attended by office bearers elected on the basis of the elections dated 7.10.2018. It was held under the Chairpersonship of the Vice President, Iltaf Husain. It was unanimously resolved, according to the petitioner-respondents, that Muhammadullah was acting against the Society's interest. He had submitted an annual list of office bearers for the year 2019-20, different from the one that was in accord with the undisputed elections held on 7.10.2018; also different from the annual list of office bearers registered for the year 2018-19. 6. A show-cause notice was issued by the Committee of Management to Muhammadullah, asking him to explain his position with a stipulation that in the event he did not explain his position, the matter would be placed before the General Body, where proceedings would be taken for his removal. The show-cause notice indicated that the meeting of the General Body would be held on 16.10.2020, where Muhammadullah could appear personally and submit his explanation alongwith others, who had factioned off. 7. The show-cause notice indicated that the meeting of the General Body would be held on 16.10.2020, where Muhammadullah could appear personally and submit his explanation alongwith others, who had factioned off. 7. Shorn of further detail, it is the petitioner-respondents' case that on 16.10.2020, the meeting of the General Body was convened on schedule, but Muhammadullah and those siding with him did not appear or show-cause. They did not attend the meeting of the General Body. A resolution was passed by the General Body removing Muhammadullah from the post of the Manager. Nur Ali and Akhtar Husain were removed from the posts of Deputy Manager and Vice President, respectively. By a resolution of the same date passed by the General Body under the bylaws, Abid Ali was elected the Manager and Rizwan Ullah Khan the Deputy Manager. Guddu alias Mohd. Faruq was elected the Vice President of the Committee of Management for the year 2020-21. The Manager was directed to secure registration of the annual list of office bearers. 8. According to the petitioner-respondents, Muhammadullah, the former Manager and those siding with him being expelled, Abid Ali submitted an application dated 4.11.2020 to the Assistant Registrar with a request to register the list of office bearers of the Society for the year 2020-21, and further, to renew the Society's Certificate of Registration. It is the writ petitioner-respondents' case that the list of office bearers submitted by them was based on the undisputed elections held on 7.10.2018 with the necessary modification to it on account of the decision of the General Body to remove the Manager, Muhammadullah and the others, who had factioned off. Those elected in their stead were asked to be registered in the list of office bearers for the year 2020-21. The said list was submitted to the Assistant Registrar on 8.10.2021 alongwith the details of election proceedings dated 7.10.2021, with a request to register, as the writ petitioner-respondents claim. It is the petitioner-respondents' further case that in between, the appellant got a forged and fabricated election conducted on 8.10.2021 to the Committee of Management in accordance with the bylaws, which the petitioner-respondents say, were got illegally amended. The list of office bearers, different from the one presented by Abid Ali based on the General Body's resolution, was submitted by Muhammadullah on 12.10.2021 to the Assistant Registrar. 9. The list of office bearers, different from the one presented by Abid Ali based on the General Body's resolution, was submitted by Muhammadullah on 12.10.2021 to the Assistant Registrar. 9. The writ petitioner-respondents say that their objections to the amendment made to the bylaws were pending, but they were not put to any notice regarding the list of office bearers submitted by Muhammadullah based on the elections dated 8.10.2021, different from theirs. Orders were reserved on 20.10.2021 and pronounced on 25.4.2022 by the Assistant Registrar. By the order dated 25.4.2022, the Assistant Registrar discarded both sets of elections, determined an electoral college of 25 members and appointed the District Minority Welfare Officer as the Election Officer to hold elections under Section 25(2) of the Act. 10. It is this order dated 25.4.2022, that was impugned by the writ petitioner-respondents before the learned Single Judge. 11. The learned Single Judge held that it was a case of a dispute in respect of elections, which the Prescribed Authority alone, under Section 25(1) of the Act, as amended in its application to the State of Uttar Pradesh, was competent to determine. The Assistant Registrar was not competent to direct holding of elections, invoking his powers under Section 25(2) of the Act, discarding both sets of elections before him. 12. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the fourth respondent to the writ petition, who are the faction represented by Muhammadullah, have preferred this appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court. 13. Heard Mr. Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Bhagwan Dutt Pandey, Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and Mr. A.K. Ray, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 14. The thrust of the submissions advanced before us by Mr. Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the appellant is that a reference under Section 25(1) of the Act is to be made by the Registrar or the Assistant Registrar, as the case may be, when confronted by two rival sets of elections, if the dispute is bona fide. He submits that the dispute on facts should be between two bona fide rival claims and not merely one where a dispute is raised apparently without basis. In case where a dispute has no basis to it ex facie, Mr. He submits that the dispute on facts should be between two bona fide rival claims and not merely one where a dispute is raised apparently without basis. In case where a dispute has no basis to it ex facie, Mr. Chaturvedi says that the Assistant Registrar is not obliged to make a reference under Section 25(1) of the Act. He can decide and pass appropriate orders in the exercise of his powers under Section 4 with consequential orders under Section 25(2) of the Act. 15. On the other hand, Mr. R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Bhagwan Dutt Pandey, Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 4 to 6, submits that the case is one where there was per-eminently a dispute about two sets of elections held by office bearers of the elected Committee of Management that was an office on the basis of the undisputed elections dated 7.10.2018. In between, the appellant had factioned off, amended the bylaws and conducted an election based on an incompetent electoral college, all resting on the illegally amended bylaws. The amendment to bylaws, that was undertaken single handedly and without authority of law, by Muhammadullah was also the subject-matter of dispute. Mr. Ojha submits that Muhammadullah had been removed from the post of Manager of the Society by a competent resolution of the General Body dated 16.10.2020, that was passed after the purported elections, that he claims to have submitted, as he was acting without authority and contrary to the interest of the Society. In the background of the aforesaid facts, the elections convened by Muhammadullah were without the authority of law. 16. The learned Senior Advocate also submits that the Assistant Registrar ultimately held that both sets of elections were invalid and assumed jurisdiction under Section 25(2) of the Act. In doing that, he pronounced upon the validity of the elections held by the writ petitioner-respondents on 7.10.2018 in accordance with law and also upon the elections held on 8.10.2021 by Muhammadullah. Thus, according to the learned Senior Advocate, the Assistant Registrar proceeded to judge the validity of elections held by two office bearers coming from a Committee of Management that was elected in the last undisputed elections, which he had no jurisdiction to do. There was an election dispute involved, clearly bona fide, at least about the writ petitioner-respondents' claim, that merited reference to the Prescribed Authority. 17. There was an election dispute involved, clearly bona fide, at least about the writ petitioner-respondents' claim, that merited reference to the Prescribed Authority. 17. We have bestowed our due consideration to the case of parties and the rival submissions at the Bar. We find that there is no issue about the fact that both the writ petitioner-respondents and the appellant were office bearers of an undisputed Committee of Management, that was elected to office on 7.10.2018. The Committee had a term of three years under the bylaws with a clause for holding over under until fresh elections. In between, it appears that a dispute in the Management surfaced, because the Manager Muhammadullah got the bylaws amended, which the Assistant Registrar registered on the basis of an application dated 29.2.2020. It is the writ petitioner-respondents' case that this amendment was registered without notice to them or issuing notice to all members of the General Body. It is seriously in dispute whether the procedure for effecting an amendment to the bylaws was followed by the Assistant Registrar. We find that the issue whether the bylaws were amended in accordance with law, or so to speak, the bylaws of the Society is an issue that is integral to the dispute about the validity of elections now held in two rival sets-one by the appellant and the other by the writ petitioner-respondents. The Assistant Registrar by the order impugned, before the learned Single Judge, held both sets of elections invalid, assumed jurisdiction under Section 25(2) of the Act to hold elections himself through his nominee. In doing that, he pronounced upon the validity of elections of both parties, whose claims cannot be said to be mala fide, fantastic, or ones that did not merit consideration. Both sets of elections have been held by two sets of office bearers of the last undisputed Committee of Management. The dispute between them is about the amendment made to the bylaws at the instance of the appellant and the electoral college competent to vote. It is, thus, in our opinion, a thick and bona fide election dispute, that was up before the Assistant Registrar and he had no jurisdiction to determine. The dispute between them is about the amendment made to the bylaws at the instance of the appellant and the electoral college competent to vote. It is, thus, in our opinion, a thick and bona fide election dispute, that was up before the Assistant Registrar and he had no jurisdiction to determine. He ought to have referred it to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act, who is the competent Authority to summarily determine it, subject only to the final determination of the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. 18. The issue whether the Assistant Registrar ought to have referred the issue to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act fell for consideration of a Division Bench of this Court in C/M Anjuman Kherul Almin Allahganj and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2013 SCC OnLine All 14353, where it was held: 6. Both these provisions have been harmonized in the judgment of the Division Bench in All-India Council ( AIR 1988 All 236 ) (supra) where it was held as follows:- ''Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act as amended by the State Legislature enacts a comprehensive code and creates a designated forum or tribunal for adjudication in a summary manner of all disputes or doubts in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office-bearer of such society. It also provides the grounds upon which the election of an office-bearer can be set aside. The procedure to be followed for filling up of the vacancies arising from the decisions rendered by the Prescribed Authority under sub-section (i) of Section 25 has also been laid down (Section 25(2)). 7. It will, therefore, be seen that insofar as disputes or doubts in respect of the election or continuance in office of the office-bearers of a society registered in Uttar Pradesh are concerned, the Legislature has created a specific forum and laid down an exhaustive procedure for determination of the same under Section 25. There is no other provision, express or otherwise, providing for determination of such disputes specifically. It is settled law that where, as here, the Legislature creates a specific forum and lays an exhaustive procedure for determination of a particular class of disputes in respect of matters covered by the statute, such disputes can be determined only in that forum and in the manner prescribed thereunder and not otherwise. It is settled law that where, as here, the Legislature creates a specific forum and lays an exhaustive procedure for determination of a particular class of disputes in respect of matters covered by the statute, such disputes can be determined only in that forum and in the manner prescribed thereunder and not otherwise. If, therefore, a dispute is raised with regard to the election or continuance in office of an office-bearer of a society registered in Uttar Pradesh, the same has to be decided only by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) and not by the Registrar, save, of course, to the decision of the Prescribed Authority being subject to the result of a civil suit.'' 7. The judgment of the Division Bench came up for consideration in Gram Shiksha Sudhar Samiti, 2010 (5) ALJ 41 (supra). In the subsequent judgment the Division Bench held that the earlier judgment has harmonized the provisions of both Sections 4 and 25 and what can be inquired into under Section 25 of the Act, cannot be gone into under the proviso to Section 4. In that case, the Division Bench held that the learned single Judge ought to have set aside an order of the Registrar dated 11 July 2010 and ought to have directed the Registrar to refer the objection to the Prescribed Authority tinder Section 25(1). The Division Bench held that once an application for talcing on record the name of the office bearers and an objection as to the validity of the office bearers who were duly elected has been filed, the Registrar considering under Section 25(1) ought to refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority. Undoubtedly, in the subsequent decision in the Committee of Management (supra) it has been held that the Registrar ''is not a post office for referring any and every dispute''. The Division Bench there held that more than three years after the holding of an election there was no reason to entertain a petition at the belated stage. 8. In the present case, a list was submitted by the third respondent, of office bearers under Section 4 for 2013-14. The list was objected too. The Deputy Registrar had conflicting claims between the appellants on the one hand and the third respondent on the other hand. 8. In the present case, a list was submitted by the third respondent, of office bearers under Section 4 for 2013-14. The list was objected too. The Deputy Registrar had conflicting claims between the appellants on the one hand and the third respondent on the other hand. Hence when an application for taking on record the names of the officer bearers was filed and an objection to the validity of the elected office bearers was placed before him, the Registrar ought to have referred the dispute to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1). In entertaining the dispute himself and going into merits of the rival claims, the Deputy Registrar has clearly transgressed his jurisdiction. The jurisdiction to decide any doubt or dispute in respect of an election of the office bearers of the Society lies with the Prescribed Authority and the Registrar ought to have made a reference to the Prescribed Authority. 9. The learned Single Judge is right in holding that the Prescribed Authority would have to decide under Section 25(1) upon the dispute which is raised. To that extent the observations of the learned single Judge are justified. However, we find merit in the contention of the appellants that the petition could not have been dismissed merely with liberty to move the Prescribed Authority. The appropriate direction to pass, was to set aside the order of the Deputy Registrar which is an order without jurisdiction since the Deputy Registrar has decided an issue which fell within exclusive domain of the Prescribed Authority. 19. We, therefore, find that on the facts here, there is a dispute about two rival sets of elections raised bona fide before the Assistant Registrar, which ought to have been referred to the Prescribed Authority. The dispute has within its fold issues regarding the validity of amendments made to the bylaws and the electoral college competent to vote. These issues would also have to be determined by the Prescribed Authority and it is within the province of the Prescribed Authority seized of the proceedings under Section 25(1) of the Act to decide the question of membership of the General Body. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of this Court in Kisan National Education Trust and others v. Prescribed Authority (Sub-Divisional Magistrate) and others, 2018 SCC OnLine All 6120, where it has been held: 62. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of this Court in Kisan National Education Trust and others v. Prescribed Authority (Sub-Divisional Magistrate) and others, 2018 SCC OnLine All 6120, where it has been held: 62. In Vidur Sewa Ashram v. State of U.P., 2018 (5) ADJ 717 , a Coordinate Bench of this Court was considering the question whether membership of the general body of a society could be decided by the Prescribed Authority incidentally to the dispute relating to elections. 63. This Court considered the provisions of Section 25(1)''of the Societies Registration Act and also the provisions of Section 25(2) and also Section 4(B) of the Act. It considered the judgment rendered by this Court in Sita Ram Rai v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur, (2003) 52 ALR 246 and Vindhya Vasini v. Prescribed Authority, (2002) 47 ALR 541 and observed that in Sita Ram Rai's case, it has been held that election disputes, if any, including validity of members entitled to vote can be decided by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act. In Vindhyawasni case, it was held, that the decision relating to number of members of general body entitled to participate in election is incidental for deciding the doubt about the validity of elections under sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Act, and therefore can be decided by the Prescribed Authority. 20. It is in the last contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge could not have disposed of the writ petition finally at the admission stage without inviting a counter-affidavit. True, it is that normally in a writ petition, particularly an original petition, the respondents must be given opportunity to respond by filing a counter-affidavit, but here we find that the appellant was heard and was represented by the learned Counsel before the learned Single Judge. There is no case either on the grounds raised or in the affidavit that the learned Counsel representing the appellant before the learned Single Judge asked for time to file a counter-affidavit, which was not granted. Apparently, the learned Counsel for the appellant, as the tenor of the judgment impugned would show, chose to address the Court on merits without seeking time to file a counter-affidavit. Apparently, the learned Counsel for the appellant, as the tenor of the judgment impugned would show, chose to address the Court on merits without seeking time to file a counter-affidavit. In our opinion, therefore, the appellant cannot be permitted to raise a grievance of that kind once before the learned Single Judge the appellant chose to address the Court on merits, sans an affidavit on their behalf. Even otherwise, most of the papers were on record of the writ petition and the issue is essentially about jurisdiction based on facts, that are sufficiently available on the existing papers. No prejudice to the appellant, therefore, has been demonstrated. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has committed no error in directing the Assistant Registrar to make a reference under Section 25(1) of the Act. 21. No point was argued or raised before us in addition to that which was considered and dealt with by the learned Single Judge. 22. We find no merit in the appeal. The appeal fails and is dismissed.