Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard Sri P.S. Baghel, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 4 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

2. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioners bringing on record the resolution dated 21st May, 2010 under which the petitioners had been authorized to move a reference before the Prescribed Authority.

3. A counter-affidavit has also been filed by the contesting private respondent and the matter has been heard.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 submits that he does not propose to file any counter-affidavit at this stage.

5. The sole ground on which the reference has been rejected by the Prescribed Authority is that the same has not been presented with the strength of 1/4th of the members of the general body as envisaged under sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1860 Act’).

6. Sri P.S. Baghel contends that the aforesaid approach of the Prescribed Authority is erroneous in law, inasmuch as, on facts the meeting of the general body was conducted