The Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, does not have jurisdiction to decide disputes regarding the election or continuance of office-bearers of a society under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act. Such disputes must be referred to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act.

1. By means of this writ petition the petitioners, Khapraha Educational Society, Jaunpur, has challenged the impugned order dated 6th August, 1992 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Chits and Societies, Varanasi Region, Varanasi (respondent no. 1) by which in purported exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act (as amended) the said respondent had accepted the list of office bearers submitted by the respondent no. 2 and rejected the list submitted by the petitioner no. 1 through the petitioner no 2. The respondent no. 2 had filed a caveat in this Court end had also filed a counter affidavit to which rejoinder was filed by the petitioners The matter had come up before a Single Judge of this Court for admission The said learned Single Judge, however, felt that in view of the fact that an earlier writ petition pertaining to the same society had keen dismissed by me on 28th April, 1992 as not maintainable, there might be repercussion of the said decision on the present petition and, therefore, the matter may be beared by me. It is thus that this matter has come up before me. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length at the admission stage itself and with the consent of learned counsel the writ petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage

2. In brief, the relevent facts are that the petitioner's society was registered in the year 1962 with the object of running an educational institution which is presently known as Janta Intermediate College, Khapraha, Jaunpur. The Society has a General Body, which is the parent body of the institution, which constitutes a 'Committee of Management of the college and the Committee looks after the affairs of the society. The society has its bye laws by which it is governed. According to the petitioners, last election of the petitioners society was held on 11-6-1989 and again fresh elections were held after about 3 years on 28-5-1992. It has been, alleged that the petitioner no. 2!, Brij Raj Singh, was re-elected as the Secretary of the Society in the said election. It is further alleged that the relevant papers regarding the election proceedings were sent to the respondent no. 1 by the petitioner no. 2 along with a list of the new office-bearers.

It appears that one Ram Siromani Tiwari respondent no. 2, moved an application before the respondent no 1 along with a list of another set of persons alleging that the general body in its meeting held on 5-10-1991 bad removed the petitioner no. 2 from the membership of the Society and thereafter the general body of the Society proceeded to hold elections of the office bearers of the society on 135-12-1991 in which the said Ram Siromani Tiwari was elected as the Manager and one Satya Narain Tiwari as President of the Committee of Management of the Society It was prayed by the respondent no. 2 that the list of office-bearers submitted by him regarding the elections dated 15-12-1991 be recorded by respondent no. 1. A notice was issued by the respondent no 1 to the petitioner no. 2 on the application given by the respondent no. 2 to file his objection, if any, by 18-5-1992, to the application given by the respondent no. 2. A reply to the notice given by the respondent no 1 was submitted by the petitioner no 2 which is Annexure 7' to the writ petition. After considering the reply of the petitioner no. 2 the respondent no. 1 passed the impugned order by which the list of office-bearers submitted by the respondent no.1 was accepted and the list of office-bearers submitted by the petitioner no. 1 was rejected Aggrieved the petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the aforesaid order dated 6-8-92 passed by the respondent no. 1.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the aforesaid order dated 6-8-1992 mainly on two grounds. Firstly, it has been contended that the impugned order is totally without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Assistant Registrar has no au