S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J. ( 1 ) THE 25 petitioners claiming to be members of the Sikh education Society, presently under supersession under Section 33 of the M. P. Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973, and represented by Administrator, sikh Education Society, Jabalpur (respondent No. 4) seek a writ or a direction or order against the respondents to conduct elections of the society in accordance with the Bye-laws as amended in 1978, and, further, order restraining the respondents from holding the elections in accordance with the amendments made and said to have been registered in the year 1972. The case has a chequared history, but the facts can be broadly outlined thus : It is stated that earlier Khalsa Education society was managing the school called Khalsa girls Higher Secondary School, Jabalpur Cantt. and there was dispute between the members of the Managing Committee and the Principal of the school, which had given rise to proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of criminal Procedure. In the said dispute, an order Annexure R-5-2 was passed and the subject- matter of the dispute was attached. Accordingly, decision was taken to form a new society and Sikh Education Society was constituted and the Bye-laws of the Society were forwarded under Covering Memo dated 15. 8. 1969 for registration to the Registrar of Firm and Societies. The registration was accorded under the Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam on 26. 8. 1969 vide Registration No. 1461. The registered Bye-laws provide for constitution of the society comprising of patrons, life members, ordinary members and honourary members. Bye-law 6 prescribed manner for enrolment of membership. Bye-law 7 for the eligibility for being its members while Bye-law 15 provided for the powers and duties of the Council of Management. One of the duties enumerated was that a Council of Management shall be constituted after 5 years in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Bye-laws. ( 2 ) IT is stated that on 28. 10. 1979, an application was made to the Registrar, Firms and Societies for registration of the amendments said to have been approved by resolution dated 25. 10. 1970 of the Society, as required by Section 10 of the Act. In response to the said request, the Registrar directed the society to make an application in the prescribed form and the direction was complied with vide communication dated 17. 1. 1971. 10. 1970 of the Society, as required by Section 10 of the Act. In response to the said request, the Registrar directed the society to make an application in the prescribed form and the direction was complied with vide communication dated 17. 1. 1971. According to respondent No. 5, the proposed amendments were registered vide communication dated 26. 8. 1972 of the Registrar, with the result, the original Bye-laws of the Society came to be known as 1972 Bye-laws. ( 3 ) IT is alleged that on 2. 9, 1973 a meeting of the foundation board was convened, in which decision was taken to constitute a committee for management of the Khalsa Higher Secondary School. A committee was constituted for management of the said Girls' School renamed as Cantt. Khalsa Girls' Higher secondary School, Jabalpur. It is further alleged that in 1976, some amendments in the Bye-laws were proposed by the then President Sardar Kuldeep Singh and after some correspondence with the Registrar of Firms and Societies, approval was accorded vide Annexure 'j' dated 23. 6. 1978. A complaint was made to the Registrar by respondent No. 5 in which it was stated that 78 amendments were perhaps due hors amendments already registered in 1972 and, therefore, the record was required to be reconstituted to bring correct position on the Register of the Registrar of Firms and Societies. An enquiry was ordered by the Registrar under the provisions of Section 32 of the Societies registrikaran Adhiniyam with regard to the validity of the amendments said to have been registered / incorporated in 1972 and 1978 and by communication dated 21. 4. 1-993, the Registrar informed the society that only 1972 amendments had been registered. It appears that enquiry ws also conducted through the S. D. O. , who in his report dated 17. 1. 1994 had informed that no meeting had taken place in respect of the amendments said to have been registered in the year 1972 and only amendments which were proposed in 1976, had been duly passed in accordance with the provisions of the Bye-laws and the body had been, therefore, properly constituted in accordance therewith. ( 4 ) THE members of the society then took the matter into litigation giving rise to M. A. Nos. 270/94, 370/94 and 325/94 arising out of the order dated 31. 3. ( 4 ) THE members of the society then took the matter into litigation giving rise to M. A. Nos. 270/94, 370/94 and 325/94 arising out of the order dated 31. 3. 1994 passed by the VI Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, in Civil Suit no. 31-A of 1992, by which ad interim injunction had been refused by the trial Court. The above Miscellaneous Appeals were decided by this High Court by a common order passed in M. A. No. 270/94 and it was observed that in view of the dispute, it was desirable in the larger interest of the society that society be superseded and the Collector, Jabalpur, and the Registrar, Firms and Societies, were directed to take suitable steps in this behalf. In pursuance of the said direction, the Registrar of Firms and Societies recommended supersession of the society under Section 33 of the Act vide his communication dated 22. 9. 1994 (Annexure R- VI), in pursuance whereof a show cause notice dated 13. 1. 1995 (Annexure R- VII) was issued and after following the procedure laid down, order dated 25. 7. 1995 (Annexure R- VIII) was passed, by which the society was superseded and the respondent No. 4, S. D. O. was appointed its administrator. The Governing Body of the society, therefore, through its president Sardar Kuldeep Singh challenged supersession of the society in W. P. No. 2839/95, which was later dismissed as having been withdrawn. ( 5 ) BY letter dated 15. 11. 1995, the Registrar of Firms and Societies directed respondent No. 4 to hold fresh election of the society in accordance with 1978 bye-laws. But immediately, on 20. 11. 1995 a corrigendum was issued to read 72 in place of 78, thereby implying that elections were required to be conducted in accordance with the Bye-laws as per amendments registered in 1972. The said direction of the Registrar was challenged by Sardar Kuldeep singh in W. P. No. 4255/95, which was dismissed by order dated 5. 1. 1996 with liberty to the petitioner (Kuldeep Singh) to approach the Registrar within ten days if he felt in any manner aggrieved by the said direction dated 20. 11. 1995 of the Registrar. It appears that Sardar Kuldeep Singh then made report dated 8. 1. 1996 to the Registrar, who by his communication dated 11. 1. 1. 1996 with liberty to the petitioner (Kuldeep Singh) to approach the Registrar within ten days if he felt in any manner aggrieved by the said direction dated 20. 11. 1995 of the Registrar. It appears that Sardar Kuldeep Singh then made report dated 8. 1. 1996 to the Registrar, who by his communication dated 11. 1. 199 G (Annexure R-11) informed his counsel that the petitioner already had the knowledge that the Bye-laws as amended in 1972 had only been approved as registered Bye-laws and. therefore, the Administrator was required to hold elections in accordance with the said Bye-laws. Sardar Kuldeep Singh who had hitherto contested the matter as all levels has not pursued the matter further by challenging the order dated 11. 1. 1996 (Annexure R-ll) of the registrar by way of an appeal under Section 40 of the Act or otherwise and at this juncture, the petitioners have filed this petition to seek a direction for holding of the elections in accordance with 1978 Bye-laws. ( 6 ) LEANED Counsel for the petitioners has invited attention to Annexure 'c' dated 6. 5. 1996, the prescribed form sent to the Registrar under the signatures of respondent No. 5 bearing recital to the effect that 1970 amendments were approved in the meeting dated 25. 10. 1970 and the register of the society containing the agenda and has pointed out that firstly the meeting hold on 25. 10. 1970 was not that of the general body and this apart, the amendments of the Bye-laws were not even in the agenda of the meeting. Learned Counsel has also referred to the report (Annexure 'd') of the S. D. O. to point out that it clearly indicates that no meeting had taken place containing the proposals for amendments in Bye-laws and on the basis of the above documents, the learned Counsel has argued that the amendments said to have been registered in 1972, even assuming that they were so registered, were void in absence of a proposal of the society to make any amendment in the Bye-laws. ( 7 ) FROM the facts of the case, it. is clear that earlier at all stages, Sardar kuldeep Singh had challenged the existence of 1972 amendments in the bye-laws and law claimed relief on the basis of the amendments proposed in 1978. ( 7 ) FROM the facts of the case, it. is clear that earlier at all stages, Sardar kuldeep Singh had challenged the existence of 1972 amendments in the bye-laws and law claimed relief on the basis of the amendments proposed in 1978. Not only that civil suits were filed to seek injunction, Sardar Kuldeep singh had filed a writ petition W. P. No. 4255/95 against the Corrigendum dated 20. 11. 1995. While dismissing the said petition, this Court had left sardar Kuldeep Singh (Petitioner therein) at liberty to approach Registrar, in case he was aggrieved by the said Corrigendum. The matter has, thereafter been decided by the Registrar and the decision has been communicated by memo dated 11. 1. 1996 (Annexure R-11 ). This Court would not, therefore, go into the same matter once again merely because now the present petitioners, claiming to be members of the society, are seeking a direction for election in accordance with 1978 amendments, which was precisely the grievance in W. P. No. 4255/95 which was filled by Sardar-Kuldeep Singh. ( 8 ) IT is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners constitute the requisite majority under Section 32 (2) (b) of the Act for requiring the Registrar to hold an enquiry under Section 32 of the Act and to give a decision under sub-section (4) thereof. The petitioners have not chosen to raise any dispute in accordance with the said provision. The petitioners were free to raise such a dispute. ( 9 ) IN the result, while dismissing this petition, I leave the petitioners at liberty to seek indulgence of the Registrar under Section 32 of the Act. There shall be no order as to coats. Petition dismissed. .