R. N. SHARMA, J. Smt. Gujrati Devi Singhal Mahila Vidyalaya, Fatehpur, Mau is a society (hereinafter referred to as the society), registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). As the renewal of the society was to expire in October, 1990, both Sri Vijai Bahadur Singh, the appellant No. 2 and Sai Vir Bahadur Singh, the respondent No. 2 filed applications for renewal of the registration of the society. The Assistant Registrar called upon both of them to appear before him on 18-12-1990 and to place the material in support of their respective claims. Both the parties appeared before the Registrar on the above date. The Registrar thereafter vide order dated 3-4-1991 renewed the registration of the society in favour of Sri Vir Bahadur Singh, respondent No, 2. Being aggrieved by it the appellant No. 2 along with the society and Sri Surendra Singh, its alleged President filed with petition No. 15281 of 1991 before this Court. This writ petition having been dismissed, they have filed this special appeal. 2. We have beard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Appellants writ petition has been dismissed on two grounds, namely, (i) the appellants did not question the claim of renewal of registration certifi cate of Sri Vir Bahadur Singh, respondent No. 2 ; (ii) the appellants have an alternative remedy of reference under Section 3-B of the Act. Both these grounds cannot be sustained for the reasons given below. 4. From the record it is clear that both the appellant No. 2 and respondent No. 2 have made separate applications for renewal of the registra tion of the society. When two rival claimants have made separate applications, each claiming the renewal of the registration certificate of the society in his favour, the existence of rival applications constitute in essence the objection by one against the other. In such a case it is not necessary to file objections against the other. In such a case it is not necessary to file objection against the application of the rival applicants. 5. Section 3 of the Act provides for making an application for regis tration "by the Secretary of the Society on behalf of the persons subscribing to the memorandum". In such a case it is not necessary to file objection against the application of the rival applicants. 5. Section 3 of the Act provides for making an application for regis tration "by the Secretary of the Society on behalf of the persons subscribing to the memorandum". If such an application is complete in all respect, the society is liable to be registered, provided it is not covered by any of the clauses of sub- section (2) of Section 3. Section 3-A deals with the renewal of the registration certificate for which an application is required to be made to the Registrar within one month of the expiration of the period of the registration. Such an application is required to be accompanied by list of members of the managing body elected after the registration of the society or after the renewal of the registration certificate and also the certificate sought to be renewed. 6. Although the application for registration of the society has to be made before the Registrar by the Secretary of the Society but there is no such provision in Section 3-A specifying the person who is entitled to move an application for renewal of the registration certificate. But it does not make such difference. A person, who is authorised to move application for regis tration of the society, will also have the right to move an application f-r re newal of its registration even if there is no express provision to that effect un less the bye-laws/rules of the Society provide otherwise. If the application for renewal has been made by the right person and the application is complete in all respect, the society is liable to be granted renewal of its registration certi ficate in Form IX prescribed by Rule 8 (2) of the Rules framed under the Act. Form IX does not contain any column requiring the renewal of the registration in the name of any person. Registration and its renewal are granted to the society and not a person, who moves the application. Registra tion certificate has to be renewed by the Registrar in favour of the society and not in favour of its office bearer or in favour of the person who has moved such an application. By the impugned order, dated 3-4-1991 the Assistant Registrar has renewed the registration certificate of the society in favour of respondent No. 2. Registra tion certificate has to be renewed by the Registrar in favour of the society and not in favour of its office bearer or in favour of the person who has moved such an application. By the impugned order, dated 3-4-1991 the Assistant Registrar has renewed the registration certificate of the society in favour of respondent No. 2. Such an order is not contemplated under the Act and Rules framed thereunder. 7. Section 3-B of the Act, which requires the Registrar to refer the matter to the State Government is reproduced below : "3-B Reference to the State Government.-if any question arises whether any society is entitled to get itself registered in accordance with Section 3 or to get its certificate of registration renewed in accordance with Section 3-A, the matter shall be referred to the State Government and the decision of the State Government there on shall be final". If any question arises as to whether any society is entitled to get its certificate of registration renewed in accordance with Section 3-A, the Regis trar has to refer it to the State Government. A Division Bench of this Court in Muzafar Husain Assistant Register, 1987 ALJ 728 has laid down that Section 3-B is in substance a proviso to Sections 3 and 3-A and therefore, when there is an opposition to an application for renewal, which prima facie is not frivolous or vaxatious, the Registrar has to refer the matter to the State Government and it is not open to him to decide it himself. But what is required to be referred under Section 3-B is the right of the society to get the renewal of its registration certificate. This Section does not cover the dispute relating to the right or locus standi of the person who moves the application for renewal of the registration certificate and, therefore, no reference can be made to the State Government by the Registrar regarding the claim or right of such a person. Such a person, for the same reason, cannot apply for reference under the said proviso. Such a person, for the same reason, cannot apply for reference under the said proviso. But the question as to whether the applica tion for renewal of the registration of the society has been moved by the proper person has to be examined and decided by the Registrar himself under Section 3-A. Power to grant renewal of registration certificate of the society under Section 3-A includes the power to consider and decide such a question. Such a power is incidental to the main power of granting renewal. Registrar can decide such a question on the basis of the papers/records, such as, list of the members of the governing body and the rules/bye-laws of the society, which he has to maintain under Section 4 of the Act. In this connection reference may be made to Committee of Management v. Assistant Registrar, 1995 (2) UPLBEC 1224 wherein the Division Bench has laid down that if an objection is raised about the membership of the governing body of any person, it is the duty of the Regsitrar to decide it under Section 4 of the Act and it is not necessary to refer the said dispute or doubt to the Prescribed Authority. This court inferred such a power from Section 4 itself, which provides that the list of the members of the managing body of the society has to be filed with the Registrar. But while deciding such a question the Registrar is not expected to decide the dispute in respect of the election or continuance in office of office bearers of the society. If and when such a dispute is raised before him at the time of consideration of the application for renewal of the registration of the Society, it is open to him to renew the certificate without deciding it, which he may refer to the Prescribed Authority. 8. The impugned order suffers from another infirmity as it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Parties in pursuance of the notice from the Assistant Registrar appeared before him on 18-12-1990 and submitted the material and made their submissions in their favour. On that date no order was passed and the order was reserved, But before delivering the order, the Assistant Registrar admitted additional evidence, viz. Parties in pursuance of the notice from the Assistant Registrar appeared before him on 18-12-1990 and submitted the material and made their submissions in their favour. On that date no order was passed and the order was reserved, But before delivering the order, the Assistant Registrar admitted additional evidence, viz. , minutes of the meeting dated 17-5-1991, showing the respondent as the President of the society ; but no opportunity was given to the appellant to rebut the same. No evidence or material can be admitted by any authority after the parties have concluded their arguments unless an opportunity is given to the other side to rebut it and to produce any other material in his favour, if he so likes. In the instant case that was not done. 9. For the reasons given above the judgment of the learned Single Judge has to be set aside and the impugned order of the Assistant Registrar has also to be quashed. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 has submitted that as period for which the certificate of registration of the society was renewed is going to expire in October, 1995, any decision given by this Court in the writ petition would be academic. This plea cannot be accepted. The impugned order of the Assistant Registrar is likely to be made the basis for grant of renewal in future. That apart; if the order impugned in this petition is allowed to stand, the Assistant Registrar may commit the similar mistake in future while considering the application for renewal. It is, therefore, necessary to declare the true position of law so that the mistake in future may not be made. In this connection reference may be made to The Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Bairagarh, Bhopal v. B. P. Upadhayaya, AIR 1966 SC 156 wherein Supreme Court decided the controversy relating to the grant of temporary permit even after the expiry of its period so that similar mistake may not be committed by the Transport Authorities in future. Under the circumstances, the impugned order of the Assistant Registrar has to be quashed. 11. This special appeal is accordingly allowed with costs. The impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside, The order dated 3-4-1991, passed by the Assistant Registrar is quashed. Appeal allowed. .