Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioners claim themselves to be the members of the general body of Maha Narayan Educational Society, Baraut Handia Allahabad.

3. The dispute relating to renewal came up before the Assistant Registrar who has passed the impugned order on 2.5.2012 renewing the registration of the Society on the strength of the documents submitted by the respondent no.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order is erroneous and perverse and the renewal has been done contrary to the provision of Section 5 (3-A) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. He submits that renewal order further records the acceptance of the election papers on the basis that the society was not registered on account of non-renewal which was beyond ,the jurisdiction of the Assistant Registrar. He further submits that the continuance of the society and its office bearers have to be adjudicated by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act and therefore the impugned order is vitiated.

4. Sri R.K.Ojha learned counsel for the respondent and the learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 contends that as a matter of fact the findings have been given in favour of the petitioner in relation to an allegation of a separate society being registered by the son of the respondent no.3. He further submits that there is a further finding in relation to the issue of membership which has also been returned in favour of the petitioner and as such there is no cause of action to the petitioner to question the validity of the said order.

5. So far as the successive elections are concerned they remained unchallenged and it was in relation to the renewal of the society that th matter was considered by the Assistant Registrar whereof Sri Ojha learned counsel for the respondent contends that the dispute was only in relation to the renewal of the society and not holding of any election.

Learned standing counsel has adopted the same arguments as Sri Oha.

6. It is evident that there was no dispute raised for the previous elections. So far as membership is concerned it has been answered in favour of the petitioner. In the opinion of the Court there was no cause of action before the Assistant Registrar to refer the matter under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. Further even an unregistered society continues in existence and is not prohibited from holding its internal elections. Learned counsel for the petitioner has unable to point out any provision of the Societies Registration Act preventing any such periodical election held timely. It is only whenelections have not been held, then only the Registrar steps in under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act , 1860.

7. Accordingly in the opinion of the Court if the society has held its elections periodically it cannot be urged that the said elections were not valid merely because the society remained unrenewed. If the petitioner was serious about contesting any periodical elections the petitioner should muster support of 1/4th members of the general body to set up such a claim before the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act or should have filed a suit for questioning the same.

This is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

_