R. A. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) SHRI Krishna Educational Society (hereinafter referred to as the Society) is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). As there was delay in the renewal of registration of the society, Sri Mahadeo Rai got a fresh registration as its Manager. Sri Awadh Misir moved an application on 10-7-1979 for cancellation of the registration granted at the instance of Mahadeo Rai on which notice was issued to Sri Mahadeo Rai by the Assistant Registrar. He not having responded to the said notice, the Assistant Registrar issued a notice dated 14-7-1980 for cancellation of the registration under Section 12-D of the Act mentioning therein that the registration has been obtained due to fraud and misrepresentation. Sri Mahadeo Rai made a representation in response to the said notice. The Assistant Registrar vide order dated 16-8-1980 cancelled the registration granted in favour of Sri Mahadeo Rai. By another order dated 16-9-1980 the Registrar granted the renewal of the registration certificate of the society to Sri Awadh Misir. Petitioners being aggrieved by the above order of the Registrar, cancelling the registration certificate granted to Sri Mahadeo Rai, filed an appeal before the State Government, which has been dismissed on 3-11-1981. Hence they have filed this writ petition, challenging the show cause notice dated 14-7-1980, the order dated 16-8-1980, cancelling the registration granted in favour of Sri Mahadeo Rai, order of the State Government dated 3-11-1981 and the order dated 16-9-1980 granting renewal to Sri Awadh Misir. ( 2 ) THIS writ petition was allowed by this Court on 5-1-1990 on the ground that the impugned orders did not contain any reasons. This decision was challenged by Sri Awadh Misir before the Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3539 of 1990. Supreme Court set aside the judgment of this Court holding that the orders of the two authorities read with show cause notice clearly indicate that the reasons have been recorded and this Court has allowed the petition by overlooking the same. Matter was accordingly remanded to this Court for deciding the petition afresh. ( 3 ) WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for both the parties have also filed written argument and we have perused the same. Matter was accordingly remanded to this Court for deciding the petition afresh. ( 3 ) WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for both the parties have also filed written argument and we have perused the same. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners has raised seven points in support of the writ petition, namely, (i) clause (c) of subsection (1) of Section 12-D of the Act, which provides for cancellation of the registration certificate, if it was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, was added for the first time in 1984 and, therefore, the registration certificate could not have been cancelled prior to 1984 on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation, (ii) Registrar has no power to review his order granting registration; (iii) no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioners before cancelling the fresh registration, (iv) State Government also did not provide an opportunity of being heard before dismissing the appeal, (v) the dispute falls within Section 25 of the Act, which can be decided by the Prescribed Authority and as such, the impugned order of the Registrar cancelling the registration is without jurisdiction, (vi) the orders are non-speaking orders, and (vii) grant of renewal of registration to Sri Awadh Misir was not justified till the registration granted in favour of the petitioners was cancelled. All these submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners are devoid of merits. ( 5 ) POINTS Nos. 1 and 2 being inter-linked are to be decided together. Section 12-D, so far as it is relevant, is reproduced herein below :"12-D. Registrars Power to cancel registration in certain circumstances- (1) notwithstanding 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 changes of name (is) contrary to the provisions of this Act, or if any other law for the time being in force; (b) that its activities or proposed activities have been or are 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. "it is settled that even if an authority has no power to review its decision, it can always recall or revoke it, if it is obtained by fraud, misreprentation or mistake. In this connection reference may be made to R. S. Chaubey v. D. I. O. S. , 1977 0 Alllj 451 : (1978 Lab IC 191), Committee of Management v. D. I. O. S. , 1979 All LJ 33, Mohan Lal - Sharma v. D. I. O. S. , 1982 0 UPLBEC 213; and Gauri Shankar Rai v. Dr. Ram Lakhan Pandey, 1984 0 UPLBEC 166. Clause (c) has made explicit what is implicit in every power. Both the contentions, as such, have no merit. ( 6 ) THE 3rd and 4th contentions also deserve the same fate. Petitioners were given a show cause notice before cancelling the registration certificate, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure- XI to the writ petition. Petitioners filed representation in response thereto and it is thereafter that the Registrar cancelled the registration certificate. After the petitioners filed an appeal, the State Government vide letter dated 9-4-1981 asked the petitioners to file evidence, if any, in their support. Petitioners in response to the above notice filed the papers on which they wanted to rely upon in their support. Thereafter the Government after considering the material on record dismiss the appeal of the petitioners. Petitioners were, thus, given full opportunity before registration certificate was cancelled and the appeal was dismissed. ( 7 ) THE 5th submission also lacks merit. The Registrar initiated action for cancelling the registration certificate on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation. Such a power vests in him under Section 12-D of the Act. Section 25 on the other hand confers power on the Prescribed Authority to decide the dispute with regard to the election or continuance in office of the office bearers of the society. Under Section 25 the Registrar cannot cancel the registration certificate. ( 8 ) SO far as the grievance of the petitioners regarding non-recording of the reasons in the orders are concerned, it was accepted by this Court while allowing this writ petition earlier on 5-1-1990. But this decision has been overruled by the Supreme Court in the civil appeal referred to herein before filed by Sri Awadh Misir. Supreme Court held that the orders do contain reasons. But this decision has been overruled by the Supreme Court in the civil appeal referred to herein before filed by Sri Awadh Misir. Supreme Court held that the orders do contain reasons. It is, therefore, not open to the petitioners to agitate the same point again before this Court. ( 9 ) REGARDING the last point, it may be mentioned that certificate of renewal of registration, which was given to the respondent No. 2 is dated 16-9-1980, which was obviously, after the order dated 16-8-1980 by which the registration certificate given to Sri Mahadeo Rai was cancelled. The action of granting renewal to Awadh Misir on 16-8-1980 was almost provisional, which is clear from the fact that no such certificate was issued to him till the registration of the petitioners was cancelled. That apart, the cancellation of the registration certificate granted to Mahadeo Rai cannot be illegal and for this reason also the date of grant of renewal of the registration certificate to Sri Awadh Misir becomes immaterial. ( 10 ) FOR the reasons given above, this writ petition is dismissed. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( 11 ) I agree. Petition dismissed. .