Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—The petitioners in all these three petitions have assailed a common order namely the order dated 8.4.2011 passed by Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Kanpur. This order relates to a decision by the Deputy Registrar on the management and affairs of the Christ Church College Society which was registered initially in the year 1956. The said Society also runs a College namely Christ Church College, The Mall, Kanpur, the Principal whereof namely Dr. Parvez E. Dean claiming himself to be the Secretary of the Society has filed the leading Writ Petitioner No. 23731 of 2011 claiming separate rights.

2. The other set of claimants through Rt. Rev. Morris, Edgar Dan Bishop Diocese of Lucknow have filed Writ Petition No. 66313 of 2011 where also the prayer is to quash the same order dated 8.4.2011. The third petition has been filed by another set of office-bearers through Conel Swing claiming himself to be the Secretary of the Society where also the prayer is to quash the same impugned order.

3. All the three sets of claimants have, therefore, made the same prayer but have claimed their own rights of Management over the Society through Committees which are separate and distinct from each other.

4. The contesting respondents are common in all the three writ petitions namely Liaquat M. Khan and Sri S.P. Prakash in whose favour the impugned order has been passed treating them to be the valid office-bearers of the Society entitled to manage the affairs of the same. The respondents being common, they have been represented through Sri Keshari Nath Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Suresh Chandra Dwivedi and they have opposed the writ petitions contending that none of the three petitioners are entitled to stake any claim. The crux of the argument of Sri Tripathi is that in the event the petitioners seek any such declaration against the order of the Assistant Registrar, then in the background of the case and the circumstances as narrated by him, the only remedy is to file a Civil Suit. Learned Standing Counsel in all the three writ petitions has supported the impugned order contending that the Assistant Registrar, while filing the list of office-bearers, has rightly arrived at the conclusion to recognize the contesting respondent in all the three writ petitions and the order is perfectly within his jurisdiction in terms of Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860.

5. The matter had been heard earlier by me on 9.7.2012, 26.7.2012, 30.7.2012, 31.7.2012, 6.8.2012 and finally on 8.8.2012.

6. This Court, having heard the learned counsel, arrived at the conclusion that the issue, which requires to be decided first, is about the jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar to adjudicate the matter and a prima facie view had been expressed in the interim order dated 26.7.2012, which is as follows :

“Heard Sri A.D. Saunders for the petitioner and Sri S.C. Dwivedi for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Sri Shailendra and Sri Prabhakar Awasthi in Writ Petition No. 66313 which also assails the impugned orders. Sri Sarad Srivastava has appeared for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 44765 of 2011 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

The main issue raised by Sri Saunders is that the Deputy Registrar had no jurisdiction to proceed to adjudicate the controversy on the issue framed by himself as to who were the valid office bearers entitled to present the cause before the Deputy Registrar. He submits that once this issue was framed, and the issue had actually arisen then the only option for the Deputy Registrar was to refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority for decision under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. He has relied on the number of decisions including the Division Bench Judgment in the case of All India Council and another v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi Region, Varanasi and another, 1988 All 236.

On the other hand Sri Suresh D