The Registrar under Section 4(1) has no authority to decide disputes regarding elections and must refer them to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25. The Registrar's decision is subject to the ultimate decision of the civil court.

( 1 ) THE core question involved in the present petition for determination is whether the Assistant registrar, Firms. Societies and Chits, exercising powers of the Registrar under the Societies registration Act (Act No. 21 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is empowered to recognize the elections of the office bearers of a registered society under the provisions of section 4 (1) of the Act or he has necessarily to refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Act, should there be a dispute or doubt about the elections of office bearers of the committee of management of the society. This controversy has travelled up to this court by means of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the backdrop of the following facts.

( 2 ) SRI Ram Laxmi Narain Marwari Hindu Hospital. Godaulia, Varanasi, is admittedly a society registered in the year 1930 under the Act. The office bearers of the last committee of management of the said society were elected in December, 1998. Dr. Ganesh Shankar Mishrapetitioner no. 2 claims himself to be the duly elected Joint Secretary of the Society. The dispute, it appears, arose on account of the constitution of the alleged new committee of management of the society. The respondent No. 2--Gauri Shankar Newar has set up rival committee of management. The grievance of the petitioners is that the claim of respondent No. 2--Gauri shankar Newar that the new committee of management has come into being is totally unfounded. With a view to thwart the attempts made by the respondent No. 2, the petitioners were compelled to institute Suit No. 19 of 2000 for the relief of permanent injunction. It appears that prior to the filing of the said suit, another Suit No. 13 of 1996 was filed by one Krishna kumar Singh in a representative capacity in which an ad interim order of injunction was passed. The said order of temporary injunction was made the subject matter of miscellaneous appeal which was allowed, meaning thereby, the order of Injunction passed by the trial court in Suit No. 13 of 1996 stood effaced. In the subsequent Suit No. 19 of 2000 filed by the petitioners, an order of temporary injunction was passed on 10. 1. 2000 by the trial court. Respondent No. 2--Gauri shankar Newar went in appeal. The operation of the order of injunction dated 10. 1. 2000 was stayed by the appellate court on 31. 1. 2000. The petitioners tried their luck by filing Civil Misc. Writ No. 6531 of 2000 but were not met with success and the writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous as in the meantime the appeal had already been decided.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 filed Civil Misc. Writ No. 4943 of 2000 before this Court which was disposed of by order dated 3. 3. 2000 with the direction that the respondent No. 1 --Assistant registrar, Firms, Societies. Chits, Varanasi shall pass appropriate orders after hearing the parties and taking into consideration the respective documents, which may be produced before him by them. Accordingly, after affording due opportunity to the parties and fixing a number of dates for the purpose, the respondent No. 1 passed the Impugned order dated 29. 3. 2000. Annexure-5 to this writ petition. holding that the election as set up by respondent No. 2--Gauri Shankar Newar has to be recognized as being according to law. It was also observed that the petitioner No. 2--Ganesh Shankar Misra had failed to produce the necessary documents in support of his contention. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners have come forward before this Court to challenge the Impugned order passed by the respondent No. 1.

( 4 ) HERE it would be worthwhile to mention that prior to the filing of the present petition, the petitioners also filed a Writ Petition No. 9390 of 2000 challenging the elections as set up by respondent No. 2. This petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 23. 2. 2000 by observing

"that the petitioners cannot be allowe