The Assistant Registrar has the jurisdiction to decide whether a dispute exists and is not required to mechanically refer every dispute to the Prescribed Authority.

The order dated 2nd December 1996 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) has since been challenged by means of the present writ petition. Mr. Ashok Bushan assails the said order in the background that the Society was registered on 23rd September, 1958 and the petitioner No. 2 Sri Rama Shanker Singh was elected as Manager of the Society. The Society was renewed on 1st January 1980 by the Assis tant Registrar. One Sri Balram Pathak raised an objection on 15th May, 1981 against the order of renewal of the Society dated 1st January, 1980. There upon the Assistant Registrar had referred the matter to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, hereinafter referred to as the Act. According to him, the said dispute was decided as infructuous by an order dated 6th January 1996. Whereas in the meantime the election of office bearers had taken place for the last time on 25th June 1994. Sub sequently by an order dated 2nd December 1996, the Assistant Registrar had held that Sri Dharnidhar Singh, herein respondent No. 2, was the Manager of the Society by reason of his being elected validly.

2. Mr. Ashok Bhushan assailed the said order dated 2nd December 1996 on the ground, first, that since there was a rival claim, the Assistant Registrar did not have any jurisdiction to decide the dispute and he ought to have referred the matter under Section 25 (1) of the Act to the Prescribed Authority. Secondly he contends that while deciding the dispute and passing the order dated 2nd December, 1996, though had referred the election held by Dharnidhar Singh but had not adverted to the election held by the petitioner Rama Shanker Singh though the records of the dispute were al ready placed before the Assistant Registrar. He next contended that though all the relevant records relating to the holding of the election including the minute books were produced before the Assistant Registrar, the same were not taken into con sideration and, therefore, the order passed by him suffers from bias.

3. Mr. A. P. Sahi, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, assails the contention of Mr. Ashok Bhushan. He first contends that there was no dispute or rival claim lodged before the Assistant Registrar in order to bring the dispute within the ambit of Section 25 (1) of the Act. According to him, the Assistant Registrar does not act as merely a post office or rubber stamp. As soon a dispute is raised the Assis tant Registrar is not supposed to refer the same mechanically. In order to make a refer ence, the Assistant Registrar has to satisfy himself about the existence of the dispute or the rival claim. Only when he is satisfied that there exists a rival claim, then only he is required to refer the matter under Section 25 (1 ). In the present case, there being a finding that there was no rival claim which is supported by records, there is no infirmity in the said order. Secondly he contends that no material was available before the Assistant Registrar to the effect that an election had taken place on 25-6-1995. His next conten tion is that the petitioner having made in correct statement in paragraph 15 of the writ petition to the effect that the petitioner had filed the documents whereas from Annexure 5, it appears that the documents were submitted by one Ram Naresh and not by Rama Shanker, the petitioner, his claim can

not be sustained. He also led me through various leadings and the Annexures similarly as Mr. Ashok Bhushan had led me through the pleadings and the Annexures respectively.

4. Mr. Ashok Bhushan, in reply, sub mitted that the Prescribed Authority had never decided the validity of the member ship of Dharnidhar. Therefore, the election held by Dharnidhar can not be upheld and the alleged finding that the Prescribed Authority had decided that Dharnidhar was a member being wholly non-existent, the order impugned can not be sustained.

5. Though Mr. Ashok Bhushan and Mr. A. P. Sahi had raised cont