HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 15174 of 2026 Court No. - 32 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mohd. Yasin, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Bhavni Chaurasia, Advocate for Respondent-4. 2. It is a dispute of rival Committee of Management between petitioners and Respondent-4 of Smt. Ramadevi Shiksha Samiti, which is running a Higher Secondary School, namely, Smt. Ramadevi Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalay, Panehra, Tehsil Atrauli, District Aligarh. 3. Manager of respective Committees are real brothers and dispute arose when their father, Prem Singh, expired. There is a dispute about his date of death also, whether it was 08.05.2020 or 05.04.2020 since two death certificates bearing different dates of death were placed during proceedings. 4. Petitioners-Society have claimed that a casual vacancy on post of President arose due to death of Prem Singh and on election, one Laxmi Singh was elected as President for remaining term on basis of proceedings dated 08.05.2020. 5. Subsequently vacancy arose due to death of one Raghubir Singh, Auditor, was also filled through proceedings dated 10.10.2022 and one Smt. Geeta was elected as Auditor. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Siddharth Khare, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Samarath Singh, Sankalp Narain Committee Of Management, Smt. Ramadevi Shiksha Samiti And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 6. The Committee continued to run and no election took place after the tenure of five years was concluded in the year 2022. A further bone of contention was that on 25.07.2023 respective resignation was submitted by Nathoo Singh, Manager; Dheeraj Lal, Treasurer; Smt. Geeta, Auditor; and, Raghuvir Singh, Member from respective offices of Committee of Management, which was accepted in meeting dated 25.07.2023 and further in same meeting Dhreeraj Lal was elected as Manager, Smt. Geeta as Treasurer, Rinku Singh as Auditor and Santosh as a Member of Committee of Management. 7. It is further on record that petitioners have submitted an application dated 11.10.2023 for registration of list of Members and Office Bearers of Committee of Management for the year 2023-24 on which Deputy Registrar issued a notice dated 08.11.2023 addressed to Nathoo Singh of opposite party to file objection, if any, however, no objection was filed and list of Office Bearers for the year 2023-24 submitted by petitioners was registered. 8. Subsequently, list of Members and Office Bearers of Committee of Management for the year 2025-26 with Laxmi Singh as President and Dheeraj Lal as Manager was also registered by Deputy Registrar by means of communication dated 25.08.2025. 9. Before aforesaid list was issued by Deputy Registrar, Nathoo Singh (Respondent-4) claiming himself to be Manager of Committee of Management filed a complaint dated 25.07.2025 before Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Agra. He also filed a subsequent application dated 20.09.2025 which was accompanied by proceedings of different dates from 09.03.2019 to 08.10.2022 as well as proceedings dated 02.09.2022 that Committee of Management has elected Smt. Mamta Devi as a President and Nathoo Singh as a Manager. WRIC No. 15174 of 2026 2 10. On basis of aforesaid complaint, a notice was issued and it appears that efforts for settlement between two brothers were failed and finally the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Agra passed an order dated 06.03.2026 whereby list of Office Bearers for the year 2023-24 and 2024-25 submitted by petitioners were cancelled and list of Office Bearers for the year 2025-26 on basis of election dated 02.09.2022 as claimed by Respondent-4 was directed to be registered as a valid list. This order is under challenge before this Court. 11. Learned Senior Advocate for petitioners submits that in above referred circumstances when there was a serious dispute between rival claim of election of a Committee of Management, Deputy Registrar was not authorized to decide said dispute on its own and it was incumbent upon Deputy Registrar to make a reference to Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of Societies Registrar Act, 1860. 12. Learned Senior Advocate also submits that by way of impugned order proceedings of petitioners' Committee of Management were set aside on frivolous grounds and without entertaining any objection to election set up by rival Committee of Management, i.e., Respondent-4, their list of Office Bearers was considered to be a genuine list. 13. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that when list of Office Bearers of petitioners' Society was submitted before Deputy Registrar, a notice was issued to Respondent-4, however, no objection or rival proceeding of election were placed. 14. Per contra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent-4, referred impugned order that once Deputy Registrar after considering documents available come to conclusion that claim set up by petitioners was bogus and no genuine dispute arose, whereas election set up by Respondent- 4 was genuine, there was no mandatory requirement for Deputy Registrar to refer the matter to Prescribed Authority. WRIC No. 15174 of 2026 3 15. Learned Senior Advocate refers the Memorandum of Association and bye-laws framed under Societies Registration Act and specifically the procedure to be adopted to fill up a casual vacancy arose that said vacancy shall be filled by 2/3 majority of General Body and not by Members of Committee of Management as claimed by the petitioners. 16. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material available on record. 17. From a careful perusal of impugned order, it is evident that it has assigned reasons to reach a conclusion that list submitted by petitioners' Committee of Management and proceedings were bogus and due process was not followed for the purpose of filling up casual vacancies. It also takes note that proceeding to fill up the vacancy arose due to death of Prem Singh was undertaken on 05.05.2020 whereas according to death certificate, Prem Singh has expired on 08.05.2020. Further, proceedings undertaken by petitioners' Committee of Management were found to be bogus and suffered with fraud and election set up by Respondent-4 was accepted and their list of Office Bearers was accordingly registered without much deliberation. 18. It will be also relevant to refer here that no specific finding was returned so far as acceptance of resignation is concerned, i.e., the proceedings dated 25.07.2023 set up by petitioners. 19. Now the Court proceed to consider, whether in given circumstances such nature of consideration as made by Deputy Registrar in impugned order could be done or it was beyond it's jurisdiction as in such circumstances the dispute ought to have been referred to Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of Societies Registration Act or not as well as under the garb of consideration, whether Deputy Registrar could review it's earlier orders. WRIC No. 15174 of 2026 4 20. At this stage, Court takes note of a judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Committee of Management, Anjuman Kherul Almin Allahganj and another vs. State of U.P. and others, 2014(1) ADJ 44 wherein various judgments on issue were considered and relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter: "10. Both these provisions have been harmonised in the judgment of the Division Bench in All-India Council (Supra) where it was held as follows : ''Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act as amended by the State Legislature enacts a comprehensive code and creates a designated forum or tribunal for adjudication in a summary manner of all disputes or doubts in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office-bearer of such society. It also provides the grounds upon which the election of an office-bearer can be set aside. The procedure to be followed for filling up of the vacancies arising from the decisions rendered by the Prescribed Authority under Sub-section (i)of Section 25 has also been laid down (Section 25(2).) 7. It will, therefore, be seen that insofar as disputes or doubts in respect of the election or continuance in office of the office- bearers of a society registered in Uttar Pradesh are concerned, the Legislature has created a specific forum and laid down an exhaustive procedure for determination of the same under Section 25. There is no other provision, express or otherwise, providing for determination of such disputes specifically. It is settled law that where, as here, the Legislature creates a specific forum and lays an exhaustive procedure for determination of a particular class of disputes in respect of matters covered by the statute, such disputes can be determined only in that forum and in the manner prescribed thereunder and not otherwise. If, therefore, a dispute is raised with regard to the election or continuance in office of an office-bearer of a society registered in Uttar Pradesh, the same has to be decided only by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) and not by the Registrar, save, of course, to the decision of the Prescribed Authority being subject to the result of a civil suit.'' WRIC No. 15174 of 2026 5 21. In aforesaid circumstances, though Deputy Registrar is not mere a Post Office to refer any dispute amongst the election set up by rival Committee of Management to refer the matter to Prescribed Authority, however, when there are serious objections and it is likely that bye-laws and nature of proceedings has to be considered on basis of rival submissions and documents so much as that one of the rival election has to be rejected, it would be appropriate for Deputy Registrar to refer the matter to Prescribed Authority instead to decide the same itself. 22. In the present case, the findings returned by Deputy Registrar are that the proceedings set up by petitioners were bogus but for that the objection of Respondent-4 were considered to large extent, therefore, there was a genuine dispute. Accordingly, Court finds that argument of learned Senior Advocate for petitioner has much force so far as jurisdiction is concerned. Therefore, in given set of circumstances, Court is of the view that impugned order was passed beyond jurisdiction of Deputy Registrar and is liable to be set aside. 23. Court also takes note that a judgment placed by learned Senior Advocate for Respondent-4 in the case of Committee of Management of Rashtriya Junior High School (Society) vs. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi, 2005(3) UPLBEC 2817 would not be applicable since as referred above, in the present case there was a real cause of litigation and it was not a case that there was not even a shadow of real cause of litigation. 24. In view of above, impugned order dated 06.03.2026 is hereby set aside and matter is referred to Prescribed Authority. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. April 22, 2026 AK WRIC No. 15174 of 2026 6 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad