JUDGMENT : - S.P.Srivastava, J. 1. HEARD the counsel for the petitioners. 2. PERUSED the record. The Petitioners have sought for the quashing of an order passed by the Deputy Registrar Firms Societies and Chits, U. P. Kanpur, respondent no. 2 dated 2 8- 94 where under the certificate dated 28-1-94 of renewal of registration of the Society known us Bharati Vidya Prasar Sangh, Rajpur. Kanpur which had been issued to Kranti Kumar Chaturvedi, petitioner no. 1 had been cancelled and a further direction had been issued to renew the registration on the basis of the papers submitted by Shri Mukut Singh and register the Committee of Management for the year 1994-95 as submitted by him under section 4 (1) of the Act. The respondent no 2 in his aforesaid order has cancelled the certificate of renewal on the ground that it had been obtained by misrepresentation and fraud. 3. THE petitioner has asserted that the Society in the name and style of Bharati Vidya Prasar Sangh, Rajpur, Kanpur, Dehat had been registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act on 25-1-65. It is further asserted that the renewal of the registration certificate of the Society was granted for a period of two years on 10-10-77 and thereafter on 27-12-80 for the period ending 10-10-81 whereafter the Society became an unregistered Society It is claimed that on the application of the petitioner, the certificate of renewal of registration was granted on 28-1-94 for a period of five years with effect from 10-10-90 Thereafter on the complaint of the respondent no. 1 proceedings for the cancellation of the renewal certificate issued on 28-1-94 were initiated which culminated in the impugned order. 4. THE assertion of the petitioners is that the impugned order it without jurisdiction and has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to them. 1 proceedings for the cancellation of the renewal certificate issued on 28-1-94 were initiated which culminated in the impugned order. 4. THE assertion of the petitioners is that the impugned order it without jurisdiction and has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to them. it is further asserted that in the proceedings under section 12-D of the Act, the registration of the Society can be cancelled but no order for cancelling the renewal of registration can be passed THE assertion is that section 3 of the Societies Registration Act provides for the registration of the Society and the provisions contained in section 3-A of the said Act provides for renewal of the certificate of registration and if any question arises whether any society is entitled to get it registered in accordance with section 3 or to get its certificate of registration renewed in accordance with section 3-A, the matter has to be referred to the State Government as provided under section 3 B of the Act and the decision of the State Government thereon has to be final. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that in the circumstances, the respondent no. 2 had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. 5. A perusal of section 12-D as applicable to the State of U. P. clearly indicates that notwithstanding anything; contained in the Act the Registrar, could, by order in writing, cancel the registration of any society or any of the grounds mentioned therein Section 12D (1) (c) which was inserted by U. P. Act no. 11 of 1984 with effect from 30-4-84 is to the following effect :- (c) that the registration or the certificate of renewal has been obtained by mis-representation or fraud. 6. SECTION 12-D (2) as amended by U.P. Act no. 11 of 1984 clearly provides a statutory remedy of appeal against an order made under sub-section (1) of section 12-D. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is clear that an order cancelling the registration of any Society on the ground that the registration or the certificate of renewal bad been obtained by mis-representation or fraud could be challenged in an appeal the remedy whereof stood provided under section 12-D (2) of the Act. 7. ACCORDING to the petitioner himself the society had become unregistered as contemplated under section 3-A (5) of the Act. 7. ACCORDING to the petitioner himself the society had become unregistered as contemplated under section 3-A (5) of the Act. The effect was that it ceased to be a legal entity and was reduced to a mere association of persons. Consequently, even according to the petitioners it was the certificate of renewal of registration granted on 28-1-94 which had the effect of putting the Society in the category of a registered society, in view of section 3-A (6). With the cancellation of this certificate, however, the society automatically got de registered. Obviously, therefore, with the addition of sub-clause (c) in section 12 D with effect from 30-4 -84 providing that the registration of any society could be cancelled if the certificate of renewal had been obtained by mis-representation or fraud, the order cancelling a certificate of renewal had to be taken as an order cancelling the registration of the Society as that order necessarily involved the society concerned having been rendered unregistered. It is an order having the effect of reducing the Registered Society to a mere association of persons and further which has the effect of making the Registered Society to lose its legal entity, which has been made appealable providing a statutory remedy under section 12-D (2) of the Act against such an order. 8. IN the circumstances, therefore, the order passed by the Deputy Registrar dated 2-8-94 clearly fell within the category of an order which could be assailed in an appeal provided for under section 12-D (2) of the Act. The other part of the impugned order is of a consequential nature which has to fall with the falling of the order of cancellation. If the matter is viewed from the above angle which is the only possible view, I have no difficulty whatsoever in holding that the provisions contained in section 12-D (2) of the Act stand clearly attracted. Thus, the petitioners have a statutory alternative remedy of appeal for redressal of their grievance. The petitioners have, however, approached this Court without exhausting the aforesaid remedy. 9. THE controversy raised by the petitioners involves investigation into disputed questions of fact. This can appropriately be done by the appellate authority. 10. CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case indicated hereinbefore, I am not inclined to interfere at this stage while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. THE controversy raised by the petitioners involves investigation into disputed questions of fact. This can appropriately be done by the appellate authority. 10. CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case indicated hereinbefore, I am not inclined to interfere at this stage while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 11. HOWEVER, it will be open to the petitioners to pursue the alternative remedy. Petition dismissed.