ORDER : M.I. Arun, J. There is a dispute between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.12 as to who is entitled to manage the affairs of Maragamma Devi Temple situated at Vijayapura. Both petitioner No.1 and respondent No.12 are said to be registered Societies. In this regard, O.S.No.663/2025 is said to be pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge, Vijayapura. It is submitted that in the said original suit, though respondent No.12 is not made a party to the proceedings, all the members of respondent No.12 are included as a party to the proceedings. It is further submitted that in the meanwhile, petitioner No.1-Society made a representation to respondent No.2 to initiate appropriate action against respondent No.12-Society. Instead of deciding on the said representation, respondent No.12 passed the impugned order dated 13.06.2025 bearing No. vide Annexure-G to the writ petition wherein respondent No.12 is held to be having the right to conduct the necessary jatra. It is submitted that respondent No.2 does not have the jurisdiction to pass such an order. 2. Learned Additional Government Advocate upon instructions fairly submits that respondent No.2 does not have jurisdiction to pass such an order and it is for the parties to agitate the same before the Trial Court by filing appropriate proceedings. He further submits that given the dispute between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.12 and taking into consideration the ground situation, the district administration would supervise the conduct of the Jatra by involving all the stakeholders. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.12 justifies the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. According to learned Additional Government Advocate himself, respondent No.2 did not have jurisdiction to pass the impugned order wherein he has conferred a right to conduct Jatra on respondent No.12. Learned counsel for respondent No.12 is not in a position to show how respondent No.2 has jurisdiction to pass such an order. 5. Admittedly, the dispute pertains to the rights of the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.12 in respect of Maragamma Devi (Durga Devi) Temple situated in Vijayapura. If they have any right over the same, they have to agitate it before the appropriate forum and obtain necessary orders. 5. Admittedly, the dispute pertains to the rights of the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.12 in respect of Maragamma Devi (Durga Devi) Temple situated in Vijayapura. If they have any right over the same, they have to agitate it before the appropriate forum and obtain necessary orders. Respondent No.2 being the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies can only examine the affairs of the Societies that is the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.12 herein and pass appropriate orders as per the powers conferred on him under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act. He cannot decide a civil dispute between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.12. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate has fairly submitted that in the interest of general public, the district authority shall supervise the conduct of the Jatra by involving all the stakeholders. 7. As the impugned order is passed without jurisdiction, the same is liable to be set aside. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The order dated 13.06.2025 bearing passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-G to the writ petition is hereby set aside. ii. The District Administration of Vijayapur District shall take appropriate decision depending upon the ground situation by involving all the stakeholders regarding conduct of the Jatra or not. iii. It is hereby clarified that in Jatra scheduled on 15.07.2025, both the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.12 are not conferred any right by this order. iv. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.12 are given liberty to approach the appropriate forum to agitate their rights.