O. P. GARG, J. ( 1 ) THE dispute in these two writ petitions pertains to the constitution/substitution and recognition of a society registered under the societies Registration Act. which runs SGM Inter College at Khairgarh, in district Firozabad. Sri H. N. Singh, appearing on behalf of the respondents urged that since both the writ petitions particularly the older one No. 6609 of 1994 have become infructuous, they may be dismissed. This submission was repelled by Sri Neeral Upadhyaya. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in both the writ petitions, it is found feasible to decide them finally on merits by this common judgment. ( 2 ) A Society, with the name Of Mathur Vaishya Siksha Pracharini Sabha (for short, "mathur Sabha") Khairgarh in district Mainpuri, which area now falls in district Firozabad, was registered under the Societies Registration Act on 16. 9. 1966. Bye-laws of the aforesaid society are contained in Annexure CA 1 to the counter-affidavit in Civil Misc. Writ No. 6202 of 1997, which are titled as smriti Patra. S/sri Ram Gopa! Gupta, Ramesh Chandra and Ishwar Dayal gupta and others belonging to Vaishya community were the founder members and office bearers of the society. A Junior High School was established which was run managed by the said society and this institution, presently known as sgm Inter College, in due course of time came to be upgraded. It is recognised and aided institution and the provisions of UP Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and Payment of Salaries Act. UP Act No. 24 of 1971, are applicable to it. Admittedly, the first Secretary/manager of the society/committee of management was Ishwar Dayal Gupta. He continued to function as such for a number of years. Ishwar Dayal Gupta, Manager of the institution filed a writ petition No. 3485 of 1976 before this Court which was dismissed on the ground that he may take recourse to the alternative remedy of filing a suit. It appears that Ishwar Dayal Gupta did not file a suit but approached the Deputy Director of Education (for short, "dde"), who rejected the claim of Ishwar Dayal Gupta and recognised Netra Pal Sharma as Manager of the Committee of management. It appears that Ishwar Dayal Gupta did not file a suit but approached the Deputy Director of Education (for short, "dde"), who rejected the claim of Ishwar Dayal Gupta and recognised Netra Pal Sharma as Manager of the Committee of management. Netra Pal Sharma proposed the charge in the name of the society and applied for renewal of the certificate of registration of the society in the name of Krishak Siksha Pracharini Sabha (for short, "krishak Sabha" ). Ultimately, he was successful in getting the society registered with a changed name and the society was registered with the name of krishak Sabha In march 1979 for a period of two years w. e. f. 10. 10. 1977 to 10. 10. 1979. A dispute was raised by Ishwar Dayal Gupta before the Prescribed Authority under section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. This petition was also dismissed by the Prescribed Authority on 21. 5. 1982. Thereafter, Ishwar Dayal Gupta and others filed a writ petition No. 9731 of 1982 challenging the registration of the society in the changed name of Krishak Sabha and recognition of Netra Pal sharma and others as its members and office bearers. Before the decision in this writ petition, the Assistant Registrar, by invoking his jurisdiction under section 12-D of the Societies Registration Act, cancelled the substitution of the name krishak Sabha for mathur Sabha by order, dated 20. 5. 1988. This order was also confirmed by the Commissioner of the Division in appeal on 16. 5. 1990. Both these orders came to be challenged by Netra Pal Sharma and others, who filed a writ petition in the name of Krishak Sabha. The said writ petition No. 14373 of 1990 decided on 19. 4. 1991. The orders, dated 20. 5. 1988 and 16. 5. 1990 passed respectively by the Assistant Registrar and the commissioner of the Division were quashed by observing that during the pendency of the earlier writ petition No. 9731 of 1982, in which the substitution of the name of the society has been challenged, the aforesaid orders could not be passed by the Assistant Registrar or the Commissioner. 5. 1990 passed respectively by the Assistant Registrar and the commissioner of the Division were quashed by observing that during the pendency of the earlier writ petition No. 9731 of 1982, in which the substitution of the name of the society has been challenged, the aforesaid orders could not be passed by the Assistant Registrar or the Commissioner. The following observations, in pursuance of which writ petition No. 14373 of 1990 was dismissed, may be quoted for ready reference :"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 Honble 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 jurisdiction for the Registrar to have himself decided the said controversy in exercise of powers under Section 12-D of the societies Registration Act. 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. In this view of the matter, I am clearly of the opinion that the order of the Assistant Registrar, dated 20. 5. 1988 and the order of the commissioner, dated 16. 5. 1990 is vitiated in law and are liable to be set-aside. Accordingly. I allow the writ petition, set-aside the order of the assistant Registrar, dated 20. 5. 1988 and the order of the Commissioner, dated 16. 5. 1990. "the aforesaid order was challenged by Ishwar Dayal Gupta and others by filing Special Leave Petition No. 40891 of 1992 before Honble Supreme court. The said petition was dismissed on 9. 3. 1992 with the observation that the High Court is seized of the matter in writ petition No. 9731 of 1982. In course of time, the writ petition No. 9731 of 1982 was dismissed on 7. 1. 1993 as having become infructuous. A review petition was filed by Ishwar Dayal gupta and others. By a detailed order, dated 26. 4. 1993, the review petition was rejected maintaining that the writ petition No. 9731 of 1982 has been rightly dismissed as having become infructuous. 1. 1993 as having become infructuous. A review petition was filed by Ishwar Dayal gupta and others. By a detailed order, dated 26. 4. 1993, the review petition was rejected maintaining that the writ petition No. 9731 of 1982 has been rightly dismissed as having become infructuous. ( 3 ) SRI Virendra Tewari representing krishak Sabha applied for renewal of the certificate of registration. The matter remained pending for a considerable long time with the Assistant Registrar. He. therefore, filed a writ petition before this Court which was finally decided on 14. 10. 1993 with the direction that the Registrar shall pass appropriate orders after taking a decision in the matter within specified time. Ishwar Dayal Gupta was also making frantic efforts to get renewal of the society, made in the name of Mathur Sabha. A complaint was also made by Virendra Tewari on behalf of the Krishak Sabha to the registrar, who sought a legal opinion in the matter. Senior Prosecuting Officer submitted his legal opinion on 10. 11. 1993 to the effect that substitution of the name of Krishak Sabha in place of Mathur Sabha has been done fraudulently and that under Section 12-D, registration in the name of Krishak sabha is liable to be cancelled. Legal opinion, dated 10. 11. 1993 was accepted by the Registrar on 27. 9. 1979 on the basis of which the renewal certificates obtained by Virendra Tewari and Netra Pal Sharma in the name of Krishak sabha for the years 1980, 1981 and 1985 were cancelled and the application for renewal moved by Ishwar Dayal Gupta in the name of Mathur Sabha was allowed. On 10. 10. 1990, the certificate was issued in the name of Mathur sabha for a period of five years. Subsequently, on 11. 10. 1995, society had been registered again in the name of Mathur Sabha for a period of five years commencing from 10. 10. 1995. It is, thus, clear that the society at present stands registered in the name of Mathur Sabha and subsequently the committee of Management of the institution, of which Ajai Kumar Gupta was manager came to be recognised and his signatures were attested. On the basis of the order passed by the Assistant Registrar, the DDE also allowed the change in the name of the society by order, dated 8. 1. On the basis of the order passed by the Assistant Registrar, the DDE also allowed the change in the name of the society by order, dated 8. 1. 1997 meaning thereby it was held that Mathur Sabha is the recognised society under the aegis of which Committee of Management of the institution of which Ajai Kumar Gupta is the Manager is functioning. ( 4 ) IN writ petition No. 6609 of 1994, the petitioners Mathur Sabha and others have challenged the order, dated 29. 1. 1994, by which the Registrar of the society has recognised Mathur Sabha as the Society entitled to registration and renewal and impliedly, the name of the society as Krishak Sabha was directed to be scrapped. The consequential orders passed in pursuance of the impugned order, dated 29. 1. 1994 have also been challenged and it is prayed that the respondents be commanded not to interfere with the society registered in the name and style of Krishak Sabha. In the other writ petition No. 6202 of 1997, which has been filed by the Committee of Management of which Daya shankar Gupta claims himself to be Manager, alleged to be functioning under the aegies of Krishak Sabha, the impugned order, dated 11. 2. 1997, Annexure 13 to the writ petition, by which the District Inspector of Schools (for short, "dios") respondent No. 1 has recognised the Committee of Management of which Ajai Kumar Gupta is the Manager, as well as order, dated 8. 1. 997 (Annexure 2) passed by the DDE- respondent No. 2, amending the Scheme of administration by substituting the name of Mathur Sabha in place of Krishak sabha passed in pursuance of the order, dated 15. 3. 1996 of the Assistant registrar, have been challenged and it is prayed that the respondent-Committee of Management of which Ajai Kumar Gupta claims himself to be manager, be commanded not to interfere with the functioning of the petitioners Committee of Management of which Daya Shankar Gupta is manager and is managing the affairs of SGM Inter College, Firozabad. ( 5 ) COUNTER and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged in both the writ petitions. Heard Sri Neeraj Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioners and sri H. N. Singh, for the contesting respondents and the learned standing counsel on behalf of the other respondents at considerable length. ( 5 ) COUNTER and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged in both the writ petitions. Heard Sri Neeraj Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioners and sri H. N. Singh, for the contesting respondents and the learned standing counsel on behalf of the other respondents at considerable length. ( 6 ) AT the out-set, it may be mentioned that there is no dispute about the fact that Mathur Sabha was the society which was originally registered. Ishwar Dayal Gupta as said above, was one of the founder Manager/secretary. There appears to be much force in the submission that one Netra Pal Sharma, who was a stranger to the society came to grab it and by adopting foul means, usurped the society by getting it registered and renewed in the name of krishak Sabha. As a matter of fact, there was no occasion for changing the name of the society. There has been a protracted litigation between the parties. Their rights were never decided in any one of the writ petitions, which came to be dismissed either on the ground of availability of alternative remedy or on the ground that relief claimed by them had become infructuous. ( 7 ) SRI Neeraj Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that since Ishwar Dayal Gupta has failed in establishing his case in writ petition No. 9731 of 1982 and his review petition has also been dismissed and on the other hand, Netra Pal Sharma and others, for and on behalf of Krishak sabha, have been successful in getting order of Assistant Registrar, dated 20. 5. 1988 and that of the Commissioner, dated 16. 5. 1990, quashed in writ petition No. 14373 of 1990, Ishwar Dayal Gupta and others or for that matter, the respondents had no case to claim renewal of the certificate in the name of Mathur Sabha. After having thoroughly scrutinised the decisions in the aforesaid cases, I find that this Court never embarked upon the enquiry whether cancellation of the certificate renewed in the name of Krishak Sabha by invoking the provisions under Section 12-D was justified or not. Under section 12-D, Registrar, or for that matter, an Assistant Registrar has the power to cancel the registration/renewal in the specified circumstances. Under section 12-D, Registrar, or for that matter, an Assistant Registrar has the power to cancel the registration/renewal in the specified circumstances. There was no impediment in the way of the Registrar or Assistant Registrar to decide the matter afresh and consequently, if the Registrar/deputy Registrar has passed the impugned order on 29. 1. 1994 cancelling the registration and renewal in the name of Krishak Sabha, no objection can be taken to it. The impugned order, dated 29. 1. 1994 and consequential orders passed in pursuance thereof do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity calling for interference by this Court. At this stage, it would be proper to make a reference to a celebrated decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Shiksha Prasar samiti, Allahabad and another v. Registrar, Societies, Chits and Firms U. P. Lucknow and others, 1998 (32) ALR 360, in which it was observed that in case in which both the sides are seeking renewal of registration of the same society, they cannot be said to be aggrieved party, if the renewal of the registration is granted by the authority concerned. The renewal is of the registration of the society and it is for the benefit of all the members and office bearers of the society. There may be a situation, like in the present case, that two rival factions of the same society may apply for renewal separately and the renewal may be granted at the instance of one of them but the ultimate beneficiary shall be the society as a whole and not the individuals alone seeking renewal. In such a situation, after renewal of the registration of the society, the dispute about renewal must be taken to have come to an end. A stranger cannot and should not be allowed to claim renewal of registration of the society. ( 8 ) IN the instant case, the society was initially registered in the name of mathur Sabha. There was no reason why it should have been registered in the name of Krishak Sabha. It was adesigned move of Netra Pal Sharma and others to usurp the society and the institution run by it by getting the renewal in the changed name. All these facts came into being on account of manipulation of the usurpers-Netra Pal Sharma and others. Ultimately, justice had to triumph. Alter a long protracted litigation. It was adesigned move of Netra Pal Sharma and others to usurp the society and the institution run by it by getting the renewal in the changed name. All these facts came into being on account of manipulation of the usurpers-Netra Pal Sharma and others. Ultimately, justice had to triumph. Alter a long protracted litigation. Registrar directed the society to be registered in the original name of Mathur Sabha and accordingly renewal certificates were issued and the new society, as said above, stands registered up to 10. 10. 2000 in the name of Mathur Sabha. Netra Pal Sharma and others, or for that matter Daya Shankar Gupta and others have nothing to do with the society or the Committee of Management of the institution. The orders passed by the Assistant Registrar under Sections 3-A, and 12-D and that of the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act are subject to adjudication by the competent Court. Similarly, orders passed by the DIGS or the DDE may also be challenged before the appropriate forum. There is nothing to prevent the petitioners from challenging the orders before competent authority for adjudication. In both the writ petitions no interference is warranted for one simple reason that the certificate of the society stands renewed up to October 2000 by an order of the Registrar in the name of Mathur sabha. On the basis of the order of the Assistant Registrar, the DDE was duty bound to amend the provisions in the Scheme of Administration by correcting the name of the society as Mathur Sabha. It was Mathur Sabha alone which had right to hold election of the Committee of Management of the institution. Krishak Sabha has nothing to do with the society. At present, as the things stand, it is Mathur Sabha which is the society registered under the Act. Members of the said society have elected members of the Committee of management as well as its office bearers, who are running and managing the affairs of the institution, i. e. , SGM Inter College. The Committee of management, of which Ajai Kumar Gupta is the Manager, has been duly recognised and his signatures were attested for variety of purposes. It should not be proper to disturb the position as is actually obtaining merely because the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions whose claim is otherwise beyond the realm of reality. The Committee of management, of which Ajai Kumar Gupta is the Manager, has been duly recognised and his signatures were attested for variety of purposes. It should not be proper to disturb the position as is actually obtaining merely because the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions whose claim is otherwise beyond the realm of reality. ( 9 ) IN the result, both the writ petitions fail and they are accordingly dismissed. .