Alok Singh, J.

1. In all the writ petitions orders under challenge are dated 28.03.2011, passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies & Chits Haldwani, Nainital whereby society being represented by Rt. Rev. Morris E.Dan, Bishop of Diocese of Lucknow was directed to be renewed and registered and consequential order dated 07.04.2011, whereby renewed registration certificate was issued.

2. In the present case, the controversy is, as to whether the renowned schools, namely, All Saints College and Sherwood College of Nainital are being managed by the Society wherein members/office bearers are from Bishop of Lucknow or Bishop of Agra or Church of North India claiming to be the successor of Church of England.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the parties as well as Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned Addl. Advocate General, appearing for the State fairly contended that Deputy Registrar of Firms Societies and Chits Haldwani has absolutely no jurisdiction to adjudicate as to who are in the management of the society sought to be renewed and registered. Further contended that the question as to whether renewal order should be passed or not in the case of controversy can only be referred to the State Government under Section 3-B of U.P. Society Registration Act.

4. It is true that whenever a dispute arises as to whether renewal order should be passed or not matter should be referred to the State Government under Section 3-B of the Act. However, prior to this if a dispute arises as to whether who are in the active management of the society and who are members/office bearers of the Society, then, of course, this question cannot be decided by the State Government under Section 3-B of the Act and can only be decided either by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Act which is summary in nature or in a regular civil suit by the competent Civil Court.

5. Bare perusal of Section 25 of the Act demonstrates that procedure under Section 25 of the Act is summary in nature, therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that any finding recorded under Section 25 of the Act by the Prescribed Authority does not attain finality and can be challenged before the Civil Court.

6. Since, in all the writ petitions complicated question of fact pertaining to the membership and right to management is involved, which requires discussion of lengthy evidences to be produced by the parties, therefore, same should not be decided in a writ jurisdiction or in a summary proceedings under Section 25 of the Act.

7. Therefore, in my considered opinion instead of asking the parties to raise their dispute under Section 25 of the Act, parties should be left to approach competent Civil Court for the adjudication of their respective rights as to who are in the management and control of the society running both the schools or in other words who is legally entitled to manage both the schools.

8. In view of the finding recorded, learned Deputy Registrar (Societies) Nainital had no jurisdiction to decide the interse dispute between the parties. Therefore, impugned order does not sustain in the eyes of law. Consequently, writ petitions are allowed. Impugned orders are quashed.

9. Parties shall be at liberty to approach competent Civil Court for adjudication of their respective rights about the entitlement to run the society, membership and office bearers of the society running both the schools. Parties shall also be at liberty to apply before the competent Civil Court for interim relief. In the event of moving such application, learned Civil Judge shall decide the same on their own merit in accordance with law keeping in mind the welfare and smooth running of the schools. While deciding the right to interim management of both the schools, pending civil suit, learned Civil Judge shall take into consideration who has been managing both the schools for past long time.