ORDER S.C. Verma, J. - The present petition is directed against the order dated 8-1-1990 passed by the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi in exercise of powers under S. 12D(2) of the Societies Registration Act. 2. In short matrix, the facts of the case are that Society by the name Vyaktitva Evam Manav Vikas Goshthi (Committee on Personality and Human Development), Orai was formed by the Memorandum of Association dated 26-1-1970 and registration dated 4-2-1970, the registration number being 7803/1-21340 dated 7-2-1970. The renewal of registration of the Society was not done even after the enforcement of U.P. Act 52 of 1975 amending the provisions of S. 3 by inserting S. 3A. 3. In the year 1981 - another registration was obtained of another Society with identical name Vyaktitva Evam Manav Vikas Goshti, Orai and this was registered, the Registration Number being 177/81-82 dated 23-6-81. The renewal of registration of this Society was not done upto 22-6-1989. 4. In the meantime, an application dated 11-11-1981 was made for renewal of registration of the certificate of the Society registered in the year 1970. The Registrar under the Societies Registration Act, refused to renew the certificate by against which Vyaktitva Evam Manav Vikas Goshthi v. State of U.P., writ petition No. 4970 of 1983 D/d. 22.7.1982 was filed and is pending before this Court. The provisions of Sections 3 and 3A were amended by U.P. Act No. 11 of 1984 and in pursuance thereof the petitioner again applied for the renewal of the Society after completing the necessary formalities. It appears that during the period this application was pending, the renewal of the Society which was registered in 1981 expired in 1985 and thereafter proceedings were initiated for renewal. The renewal, however, was done and the petitioners filed their objections before the Assistant Registrar. The Assistant Registrar invited the explanation of Sri Ram Adhar Sharma at whose instance the 1981 Society was registered. The Assistant Registrar, on being satisfied, granted renewal to the Society which was registered in 1970 and cancelled the registration of the society of 1981. A copy of the order of the Assistant Registrar dated 29-10-1987 has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. An appeal against this order was filed before the Commissioner, Jhansi Division which has been allowed by order dated 8-1-1990. 5. A copy of the order of the Assistant Registrar dated 29-10-1987 has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. An appeal against this order was filed before the Commissioner, Jhansi Division which has been allowed by order dated 8-1-1990. 5. The question for consideration in the present writ petition is the effect of the amendment made by U.P. Act No. 11 of 1984 in the provisions of Sections 3 and 3A of the Act. The provisions of S. 3A, as they stood after they were introduced and amended by U.P. Act No. 15 of 1975 and substituted by Act No. 13 of 1978 are quoted below : "3A Renewal of certificate of registration. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) a certificate of registration issued under S. 3 shall remain in force for a period of two years from the date of issue : Provided that a certificate issued before the commencement of the Societies Registration (Uttar Pradesh Amendment Act), 1974 (hereinafter in this section' referred to as the said Act), shall remain in force for a period of two years from the date of such commencement. (2) A Society registered under S. 3, whether before or after the commencement of the said Act, shall on application made to the Registrar within one month of the expiration of the period referred to in sub-section (1) and on payment of the fee specified in subsection (3), be entitled to have its certificate of registration renewed for two years, at a time : Provided that in the case of a society registered before the commencement of the said Act; the Registrar shall refuse to renew the certificate of registration if after giving it an opportunity of showing cause against such refusal he is satisfied that any of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) of S. 3 exist in respect thereof. (3) There shall be paid to the Registrar with every application for renewal of the certificate of registration - (a) a fee equal to the registration fee payable under S. 3 or rupees ten, whichever is less if such application is filed within the period specified in sub-section (2); (b) an additional fee of five rupees, if such application is filed within one month of the date of expiration of the period specified in sub-sections (2) and (c) An additional fee at the rate of two rupees per month or part thereof, if such application is filed beyond one month of the expiration of the period specified in sub-section (2). (4) Every application for renewal of the certificate of registration shall be accompanied by the certificate sought to be renewed unless dispensed with by the Registrar on the ground of its loss or destruction or other sufficient cause. (5) A Society which fails to get its certificate of registration renewed in accordance with this section within one year from the expiration of the period for which the certificate was operative on payment of a fee of fifty rupees." 6. The extension given to the certificate of registration with effect from 10-10-1975 was for a period of two years only under S. 3A and under sub-section (5) renewal could be applied for another one year of the expiry of this period of two years. The legislature considered this period of two years as too short and, therefore, the provisions of S. 3A were further amended by U.P. Act No. 11 of 1984 which came into force with effect from 30-4-1984. The legislature considered this period of two years as too short and, therefore, the provisions of S. 3A were further amended by U.P. Act No. 11 of 1984 which came into force with effect from 30-4-1984. The provisions of S. 3A, as amended by U.P. Act No. 11 of 1984 are quoted below : "(a) for sub-section (1), the following sub-section shall be substituted namely : - "(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) a certificate of registration issued under S. 3 shall remain in force for a period of five years from the date of issue : Provided that a certificate issued before the commencement of the Societies Registration (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1984 (hereinafter in this Section referred to as the said Act), shall remain in force for a period of five years from the date of such commencement on payment of the difference of the fees specified under sub-section (3) and the fees already paid." (b) in sub-section (2), for the words "two years", the words "five years" shall be substituted: (c) in sub-section (3), in clause (a) for the words "ten rupees" the words, "rupees twenty-five" shall be substituted; (d) for sub-section (4), the following sub-section shall be substituted : "(4) Every application for renewal of the certificate shall be accompanied by a list of members of the managing body elected after the registration of the Society or after the renewal of certificate of registration and also the certificate sought to be renewed unless dispensed with by the Registrar on the ground of its loss or destruction or any other sufficient cause." 7. These provisions were considered in the case of Vidhya Sabha Leduka, Jaunpur v. Assistant Registrar firms, Societies and Chits, U.P. Varanasi, 1987 UPLBEC 305 : 1987 All LJ 1245. The argument on behalf of the State that the proviso as substituted by 1984 amendment should be confined to the cases where the renewal of the Society had been got done subsequent to the commencement of the amendment in 1975, was not accepted by the learned Judges and it was held as under (at P. 1247 of All LJ) : "But then in considering the name, regard is to be had to the context as also the express language used and the object behind the amendment introduced by the 1984 Act. The proviso as substituted by the 1984 Act in the first place makes no distinction in respect of societies to which the same may be made applicable. It does not say that the proviso will not apply to a society which was not got renewed within the period intervening between the enforcement of the U.P. Amendment Act, 1975 and the commencement of the U.P. Amendment Act, 1984. On the contrary the language used in reference to a certificate issued "before the commencement of the Societies Registration (Uttar Pradesh Amendment" Act, 1984) meaning thereby that it covers within its span all such societies in relation to which the certificate of registration may have been issued at any time prior to April 30, 1984 the 1984 Amendment Act commenced." 8. The learned Judges further held (at p. 1247 of All LJ) :- "There is some incongruity no doubt, as a result of existence of sub-section (5) and the Amendment Act made by the 1984 Act being not expressly given retrospective effect. But this can be resolved satisfactorily, in our opinion, upon a true interpretation in the light of the entire context. From S. 3A as introduced initially with effect from 10-10- 1975, it would appear that the extension given to the said certificates of registration was for a period of two years only and in view of sub-section (5) renewal could be applied for within another one year of the expiry of this period of two years. Legislature seems later to have considered this period of two years as too short and, therefore, the Legislature by substituting the proviso through 1984 Amendment Act substituted five years in place of two years meaning thereby that the position obtaining in all other respects remains the same except that instead of two years the life of the society in relation to April 30, 1984 is extended to five years instead of two years." "The intention of the Legislature as appearing from the language used in reenacting the relevant portion of S. 3A by the U.P. Amendment Act, 1984 would appear to be to impart a new lease of life to Societies, which had been registered at any time prior to the commencement of this Act, but in which case the renewal could not be had earlier for some reason or the other." 9. The language of the proviso added by the Amending Act of 1975 and the proviso added by 1984 Act are identical except that instead of two years, they have provided the period as five years. In the earlier amendment, the renewal granted was to remain in force for a period of two years from the date of commencement of the 1975 Act i.e. 10-10-1975 in the same way, the renewal period was to remain in force for a period of five years from the date of such commencement of 1984 Act i.e. 30-4-1988. In my opinion, there is no ambiguity and it provided for all those Societies which were registered prior to 30-4-1984 and whose registration was not renewed prior to 30-4-1984, may seek registration within five years after the enforcement of U.P. Act 11 of 1984, provided the difference of fee specified in sub-section (3) and the fee already paid, is made. 10. The Assistant Registrar, considering the application for renewal made by Sri Jaj Bahadur Misra vide letter dated 18-7-1985 and the deposit of Rs. 174/- and after applying the provisions of S. 3A as amended by the 1984 Act, renewed the certificate of registration of the Society which was registered in the year 1970 and granted renewal to this Society upto 29-4-1989. The Assistant Registrar, on the basis of the objections filed by Jaj Bahadur Misra against the grant of renewal of registration in favour of the Society registered in 1981 also considered the explanation submitted by Sri Ram Adhar Sharma and cancelled the registration and directed Sri Sharma to hand over the renewal earlier granted in their favour upto 22-6- 1989. 11. In appeal filed under S. 12D(2) by Sri Ram Adhar Sharma at whose instance the Society was registered in the year 1981, it was held that the renewal of registration of the-Society registered in 1970 was earlier refused by order dated 11-11-1981 against which representation dated 27-9-1982 was filed before the State Government which was also rejected by order dated 16-2-1983 and writ petition No. 4907 of 1983 in which these orders have been challenged is pending. The Assistant Registrar was not correct in interfering with the aforesaid orders and had illegally granted renewal to the Society registered in 1970 upto 29-4-1989. The Assistant Registrar was not correct in interfering with the aforesaid orders and had illegally granted renewal to the Society registered in 1970 upto 29-4-1989. As regards the Society which was registered in 1981 and which was validly renewed upto 22-6-1989, the Assistant Registrar had not given a proper opportunity of hearing to Sri Ram Adhar Sharma before cancelling the registration and, as such, the order was set aside to enable the Assistant Registrar to rehear the matter after according opportunity to Sri Ram Adhar Sharma. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the Order of the Commissioner mainly on two grounds. According to the learned counsel, the learned Commissioner had not considered the effect of the amendment of the provisions of S. 3A by U.P. Act No. 11 of 1984 and the second argument is that the appeal under S. 12D(2) is not maintainable against the order, as it is not a case of change of name or change of object of the Society and in that regard the cancellation of Registration. In reply to the first argument the learned counsel for the respondent contended that in accordance with the law laid down in the Vidhya Sabha Leduka (1987 All LJ 1245) (supra), the only change by the 1984 amendment is that instead of two years, in 1975 Act, the period should be read as five years and in this view of the matter, the application for renewal should have been filed within one year of the expiry of the period of five years from 10-10-1975. Admittedly the application for renewal was made on 11-11-1981, it was beyond time and no benefit as provided under 1984 Act can be given. It has also been alleged that the Society became unregistered in view of the provisions of S. 3A as amended by 1975 Act and the 1984 amending Act cannot revive the same. It was lastly urged that in the year 1981 new Society substituted the old one and by virtue of the provisions of S. 6 of the General Clauses Act, what ever has not been done, the old 'Society cannot he-revived. In my opinion, the argument advanced by the learned counsel or the petitioner has substantial force. It was lastly urged that in the year 1981 new Society substituted the old one and by virtue of the provisions of S. 6 of the General Clauses Act, what ever has not been done, the old 'Society cannot he-revived. In my opinion, the argument advanced by the learned counsel or the petitioner has substantial force. The learned Commissioner has not correctly and in correct perspective considered the effect of the amendments made by the 1984 Act in the provisions of S. 3A of the Act. The learned Commissioner did not at all advert to this aspect of the matter and instead gave finality to the earlier order dated 21-5-1982 passed by the Assistant Registrar and the order of the State Government dated 16-2-1983. It may be stated that these orders which were prior to 1984, were passed considering they provisions of S. 3A, as it stood then after the amendment by 1975 Act. In my opinion, these decisions would not come in the way to consider the validity of the renewal of certificate of the Society registered in 1970 ,after the 1984 Amendment Act was introduced. The very object of the Act was to take into its purview all the societies who were registered prior to 30-4-1984 and whose registration was not got renewed. The application of the petitioner for renewal thus should have been considered by the learned Commissioner on merits on the basis of the 1984 Amendment specially when the Assistant Registrar after applying the provisions had granted renewal of certificate. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that in view of the provisions of S. 6 of the pi General Clauses Act, the old society having been replaced by the new society, the same can not be revived also requires consideration of the fact as to whether the new society has replaced the old society and the old society thereafter became extinct for all purposes. It is not possible for me to consider in these proceedings to what was the name, object and functions of the old society as also the members and the new society which has replaced is also having the same object and functions and the members. It further requires to be seen as to when and at what stage the old society became extinct and under what circumstances and by whom, the new society was created. It further requires to be seen as to when and at what stage the old society became extinct and under what circumstances and by whom, the new society was created. This investigation is necessary because it may be that in 1981 a new society might have been created which may be different from the society which the formed in 1970. The validity of the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent can be tested only after the aforesaid material has come on the record. 13. The second argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner also requires consideration. Under the provisions of S. 12D(2), an appeal shall lie against the order made under sub-section (1) of S. 12D. The cancellation of registration of Society under S. 12D(1) is provided on the grounds enumerated in sub-clauses (a)(b) and (c). The learned Commissioner has only mentioned that the appeal shall lie against an order of cancellation of certificate but has not considered whether this cancellation of registration was, done on the grounds enumerated under S. 12D(1) or not. The question whether a society is entitled to renewal of registration under S. 3A of not is liable to be referred to the State Government by the Assistant Registrar. 14. For all the reasons stated above, I am of the opinion that the order of the learned Commissioner dated 8-1-1990 is liable to be set aside. 15. The petition is allowed. The order dated 8-1-1990 is set aside. The case is remanded to the learned Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi for reconsideration of the matter on the basis of the observations made above and in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the parties. The learned Commissioner is directed to dispose of the matter within 3 months of a certified copy of this order being placed before him.