ORDER R.B. Mehrothra, J. - Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, exercising powers under Section 12(D) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, as amended by the State of U.P. cancelled the registration of the petitioner's Society, vide his order dated 20-5-1988, taking a view that the change of the name of the society was not done in accordance with the registered bye-laws of the Societies and further directing that the application for renewal of the Society, moved by Sri Ishwar Dayal Gupta, Manager of 'Mathur Vaishya Shiksha Paracharini Sabha' Khairgarh (Manipuri) is renewed for two years from 10-10-1979, 10-10-81 and 10-10-83 and permitting them to file the list of the members of their society for the year 1988-89, under Section 4K of the Societies Registration Act. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Commissioner of the Division, who, vide his order dated 16-5-1990, dismissed the petitioners' appeal almost in limine, holding that the view taken by the Assistant Registrar is correct in the circumstances of the case. 3. In the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the aforesaid two orders passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Agra dated 20-5-1988 and the order of the Commissioner dated 16-5-1990. 4. The question involved for consideration of the present writ petition is regarding the scope of Section 12(D) of the Societies Registration Act. For convenient reference, the aforesaid section is being reproduced below. 4. The question involved for consideration of the present writ petition is regarding the scope of Section 12(D) of the Societies Registration Act. For convenient reference, the aforesaid section is being reproduced below. "12-D. Registrar's power to cancel registration in certain circumstances(1) Not - with standing anything contained in this Act, the Registrar may by order in writing, cancel the registration of any Society on any of the following grounds : (a) that the registration of the Society or of its name or change of name is contrary to the provisions of this Act, or of any other law for the time being in force; (b) that its activities or proposed activities have been or are or will be subversive of the objects of the society or opposed to public policy; (c) that the registration or the certificate of renewal has been obtained by misrepresentation or fraud; Provided that no order of cancellation of registration of any society shall be passed until the society has been given a reasonable opportunity of altering its name or object or of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to it. (2) An appeal against an order made under sub-section (1) may be preferred to the Commissioner of the Division in whose jurisdiction the Headquarter of the Society lies, within one month from the date of communication of such order. (3) The decision of the Commissioner under sub-section (2) shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court." 5. Before I consider the question, whether the order of the Registrar is within the purview of the Section 12D of the Act, some facts are necessary for the decision of the case. 6. The petitioner's Society is registered as `Krishak Shiksha Pracharini Sabha. Initially, the Society was registered in the name of `Mathur Vaishya Shiksha Pracharini Sabha' and was registered in the year 1966 under Societies Registration Act. The name was subsequently changed by the society in the year 1979. In the year 1976, some controversy arose between two rival contenders, claiming themselves to have been duly elected as president and members of the Society. The election was challenged in a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court but the writ petition was dismissed. 7. The name was subsequently changed by the society in the year 1979. In the year 1976, some controversy arose between two rival contenders, claiming themselves to have been duly elected as president and members of the Society. The election was challenged in a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court but the writ petition was dismissed. 7. Subsequent thereto, Sri Netra Pal Sharma, the then Manager applied for the renewal of the Society, under Section 3A of the Societies Registration Act on 29-1-1979. Respondent No. 4 also claimed renewal of the society in his favour. The Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, U.P. Lucknow, after considering the claim of both the claimants, recognised Sri Netra Pal Sharma as Manager of the Society. The renewal was made in favour of Sri Netra Pal Sharma from August, 1977 for two years. The order was sought to be reviewed but the review application was rejected by the Deputy Registrar on 27-9-1979. The respondent No. 4 then filed an application under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. Challenging the validity of the election and members of the Society of which Sri Netra Pal Sharma was recognised as Secretary. The Prescribed Authority dismissed the application of respondent No. 4 by his order dated 21-5-1982. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent No. 4 filed a writ petition in this Hon'ble Court, being writ petition No. 9731 of 1982. The writ petition is pending consideration of this Court but no interim order was passed in favour of respondent No. 4. 8. When in the year 1979, the name of the Society was changed an approval was sought from the registrar, as required under the provisions of the Act. The Registrar, after satisfying itself, regarding compliance of the Act and the Rules in connection with the change of the name, permitted the Society to change its name as `Krishak Shiksha Pracharini Sabha' in place of 'Mathur Vaishya Shiksha Pracharini Sabha'. Subsequent thereto the registration of the Society with the changed name was renewed in the year 1981 for two years and in the year 1983 again for two years. The petitioners applied for fresh renewal after a lapse of two years in the year 1986. Subsequent thereto the registration of the Society with the changed name was renewed in the year 1981 for two years and in the year 1983 again for two years. The petitioners applied for fresh renewal after a lapse of two years in the year 1986. At this stage, the respondent No. 4 again started agitating the matter and filed an application stating that since the matter is pending decision in the Hon'ble High Court in writ petition No. 9731 of 1982, the renewal of the Society should not be made till the decision of the writ petition. However, in the year 1988, the respondent No. 4 made another application that the Society should be renewed with the name of `Mathur Vaishya Shiksha Pracharini Sabha, and respondent No. 4 should be recognised as its manager with other members mentioned by the respondent No. 4 in his list and made allegation that the change of name of the Society was illegally done by the petitioners. On the aforesaid application, the Registrar issued notice to both the parties on 16-1-88, fixing 15-2-88 on the question as to whether the change of name of the Society was done in accordance with the provisions of the bye-laws of the Society and as to whether the Society can be renewed with the name of recognising respondent No. This notice is alleged to have been issued in exercise of powers under S. 12D of the Societies Registration Act. In response to the afore-said notice, the petitioners filed their reply, wherein the petitioners categorically stated that in the General Body meeting not only the name of the Society was changed but the bye-laws of the Society were also suitably amended, so as to enable the members of all other communities to become members of the General Body of the Society and the said change in the bye-laws and its name was duly approved by the Registrar of the Societies. As such, after a lapse of 10 years, there is no question of making up of issued regarding change of name. As such, after a lapse of 10 years, there is no question of making up of issued regarding change of name. The Assistant Registrar rejected the petitioners objection vide his order dated 20-5-88 and held that the change in the name of the Society was done contrary to the provisions of the bye-laws and renewed the Society with the name of Mathur Vaishya Shiksha Pracharini Sabha, recognising respondent No. 4 as its Manager and the list submitted by the respondent No. 4 as members of the Society, primarily this order is under challenge in the present writ petition. 9. I have heard Sri Bhushan, the counsel for the petitioners and Sri Tej Pal, the counsel for the respondents. The writ petition was listed for admission but with consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage. 10. Two questions require consideration in the present matter. Firstly, as to whether the Assistant Registrar was justified in renewing the Society with its old name and recognising respondent No. 4 as Manager and other members of the Society, in exercise of its powers, under S. 12D of the Societies Registration Act. This Court had occasion to consider the scope of S. 12D in the case of Managing Committee Sri Sanatan Dharm Sanskrit Pathshala v. State of U.P., reported in 1984 U.P. Local Bodies and Educational Cases page 1069 : AIR 1984 All 310 (sic). In this decision, this court has taken a view that so far as the question of membership is concerned, the same is completely outside the purview of S. 12-D. 11. Section 12-D only confers powers for cancellation of a registration in the circumstances given in the Act. The section does not confer any power for recognising anybody as manager or member of the Society or renewing the registration of the Society with a particular name. To that extent, the order passed by the Assistant Registrar, renewing the registration of the society with the old name of the Society and recognising respondent No. 4 as manager and the list submitted by respondent No. 4 as members of the Society, is patently outside the scope of S. 12D of the Act. 12. To that extent, the order passed by the Assistant Registrar, renewing the registration of the society with the old name of the Society and recognising respondent No. 4 as manager and the list submitted by respondent No. 4 as members of the Society, is patently outside the scope of S. 12D of the Act. 12. However, other question, which requires consideration in the present case is whether the Assistant Registrar was justified in cancelling the name of the Society, on the ground that in changing the name of the Society, the bye-laws of the Society were not followed. In this connection, the petitioners have raised two defences. Firstly, for 10 years the Society was continued to be renewed with new name and the Registrar approved the same. The controversy, whether the Registrar has rightly approved the name or not, is pending consideration of this Hon'ble Court in writ petition No. 9731 of 1982. As such, the Registrar could not have decided the matter. The second objection of the petitioners was that while changing the name of the Society, the bye-laws were also duly changed and the changed bye-laws were also approved by the Registrar. In taking a view the Assistant Registrar has failed to consider both the afore-said objections, raised by the petitioners and has taken a view that the change of the name was made in contravention of the provisions of the bye-laws. 13. I am clearly of the opinion that in writ petition No. 9731 of 1982, the controversy involved for consideration is substantially the same, which the respondents were raising before the Assistant Registrar and since Hon'ble High Court itself is seized of the controversy, it was not proper for the Registrar to have decided on the said issue, particularly, if the Society was being renewed for the last 10 years with the changed name, there was no justification for the Registrar to have himself decided that said controversy in exercise of powers under S. 12D of the Societies Registration Act. 14. In the facts of the present case, the Registrar was not justified in taking a view that the name of the Society was wrongly changed. 15. 14. In the facts of the present case, the Registrar was not justified in taking a view that the name of the Society was wrongly changed. 15. In this view of the matter, I am clearly of the opinion that the order of the Assistant Registrar dated 20-5-88 and the order of the Commissioner dated 16-5-90 are vitiated in law and are liable to be set aside and accordingly, I allow the writ petition, set aside the order of the Assistant Registrar dated 20-5-88 and the order of the Commissioner dated 16-5-90. 16. Parties will bear their own costs.