O. P. GARG, J. ( 1 ) SRI Sai Sansthan, Shri Sirdi Sal Baba Mandir, behind Rakabganj in district Agra is a Society registered on 31. 8. 1999 under the Societies Registration Act (for short act) with its President smt. Kusum Singhal and Secretary Rajiv Sharma. Fed up with the irregularities and indiscipline, smt. Kusum Singhal tendered her resignation from the post of Adhyaksh on 17. 10. 2000, which reached the Deputy Registrar, respondent No. 1. With a view of initiate action/enquiry under section 23 of the Act, the Dy. Registrar issued a notice to Rajiv Sharma Secretary on 17. 10. 2000 to require him to produce the documents including the proceedings book of the Society, cash book, agenda, register and receipt book, etc. On 19. 10. 2000, Rajiv Sharma sought one weeks time to produce the record. One Pawan Goyal, who has now been impleaded as respondent No. 2, made a complaint to the Dy. Registrar alleging that no general or annual meeting of the society had been convened and serious financial irregularities have been committed by office bearers, Rajiv Sharma was informed of the said complaint and was directed to produce the necessary documents. After hearing the concerned parties and the material produced before him, the Dy. Registrar came to the conclusion that the affairs of the Society are not being carried on in accordance with the provisions of law and that the very purpose, for which Society was brought into existence has been frustrated on account of mis-utilisation and squandering of the funds. The Dy. Registrar noticed that some advisory committee of seven persons was constituted on 5. 7. 2000 to manage the affairs of the Society. Accordingly by impugned order dated 13. 11. 2000, a copy of which is Annexure-12 to the writ petition, the Dy. Registrar dissolved the Managing committee of the Society and granted validity to the advisory committee with the observation that the advisory committee shall assume the charge of the Society and obtain the necessary documents from the Secretary so that they may be properly audited ; that the election of office-bearers be held within a period of three months. ( 2 ) BY means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 13. 11. ( 2 ) BY means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 13. 11. 2000, a copy of which is Annexure-12 to the petition, has been impugned on the ground that it is wholly illegal and untenable in law. ( 3 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed by Pawan Goyal, respondent No. 2 who was directed to be impleaded by order dated 1. 12. 2000. No rejoinder-affidavit was filed. ( 4 ) WITH the consent of the parties counsel, this petition is being finally disposed of on merits at the admission stage on the basis of material on record. ( 5 ) HEARD Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri S. D. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Radhey Shyam learned senior advocate, assisted by Miss Anuradha sundaram appearing on behalf of Pawan Goyal, respondent No. 2 as well as learned standing counsel. ( 6 ) SRI Ashok Khare pointed out that impugned order is clearly against the provisions of law and the Dy. Registrar has transgressed its powers in dissolving the Managing Committee without adopting the procedure as laid down under Sections 23, 24 read with Sections 12d and 13b of the Act. It was pointed out that the Dy. Registrar had no competence or jurisdiction to dissolve the existing Society and to validate or recognise an advisory committee, which owed its existence to no law. This submission has been repelled by Sri Radhey Shyam appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 who maintained that the dissolution of Committee of Management was ordered by the Dy. Registrar by invoking the powers under Sections 13a and 13b of the act. ( 7 ) WITH a view to appreciate the legal controversy in its true perspective, a short and swift survey of the provisions of Sections 23, 24, 12b, 13a and 13b is required. ( 8 ) SECTION 23 of the Act deals with the audit of the accounts and the statement of the receipts and expenditure of a Society, at the instance of the Registrar, if he is of the opinion that it is necessary and expedient to do so. For the purpose, the Registrar may require the office bearers of the society concerned to produce the account books and statement etc. For the purpose, the Registrar may require the office bearers of the society concerned to produce the account books and statement etc. If the society neglects or refuses to make its accounts or other documents available for audit, in that event, the Registrar may proceed to take action as is provided under Section 24 of the Act. Section 24, in its turn, provides that if the Registrar is of the opinion that there is apprehension that the affairs of the society under the Act are being so conducted as to defeat the objects of the society, or that the society or its governing body or any officer in actual effective control of the Society is guilty of mismanaging its affairs or of any breach of fiduciary or other like obligations, he may either himself or by any other person appointed by him inspect or investigate into the affairs of the society. Sub-section (5) of Section 24 provides that the Registrar may, after such inspection or investigation, issue such directions to the society for the removal of any defect or irregularities within the period specified and in the default, in taking action according to such directions, he may proceed to take action under Section 12d or 13b, as the case may be. Throughout the length and breadth of the provisions of Sections 23 and 24, there is no power vested in the Registrar to dissolve the existing Committee of Management of the Society. Section 24 simply says that the registrar would be competent to initiate action under Sections 12d and 13b of the Act if the directions as passed under Section 24 are not carried out by the society within the specified time. Section 12d relates to the power of the Registrar to cancel registration in the circumstances as specified in clauses (a) , (b) and (c) of sub-section (1 ). In the instant case, the registration of the society has not been cancelled and, therefore, Section 12d is not at all attracted. Under Section 12d, Registrar has no power to dissolve the Committee of Management of the Society. The provisions of Sections 13a and 13b are clear enough. The Registrar himself cannot dissolve the society or Committee of Management but may apply for dissolution in the manner provided under Section 13a. Under Section 12d, Registrar has no power to dissolve the Committee of Management of the Society. The provisions of Sections 13a and 13b are clear enough. The Registrar himself cannot dissolve the society or Committee of Management but may apply for dissolution in the manner provided under Section 13a. The order of dissolution may be made by the Court on the application of the registrar, on one or more of the grounds as mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1) of section 13b. ( 9 ) SRI Radhey Shyam though half-heatedly supported the impugned order but has not been able to specifically point out under what provision the society has been dissolved and whether the deputy Registrar has adopted the procedure as prescribed under the law particularly, the provisions quoted above in passing the impugned order. Reliance placed by him on Sections 13a and 13b of the Act is misplaced. I find substantial merit in the submission of Sri Ashok Khare that the order passed by the Dy. Registrar was not in accordance with any provision of law. He had no power to dissolve the Managing Committee or grant recognition or validity to an advisory committee which came into being as a result of a private arrangement, backed by no law. ( 10 ) NEVERTHELESS in the light of the subsequent developments which had taken place, I do not intend to interfere with the impugned order by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution ; for the simple reasons that the Society which was constituted for the laudable cause has been reduced to a farce ; its funds were squandered ; account books and statements were not properly maintained and the democratic functioning of the Society was throttled by not convening the regular annual and general meetings. Those persons who were required to take active part in the running of the Society were kept at bay from the affairs of the society. A handful of persons grabbed the funds and the properties of the Society. The Adhyaksh of the Society found it difficult to control its unbridled members or office bearers and sore, as she was, ultimately relinquished the office. The present writ petition has been filed to espouse the cause of the wrongdoers who have virtually denatured, denigrated or ruined the Society. The Adhyaksh of the Society found it difficult to control its unbridled members or office bearers and sore, as she was, ultimately relinquished the office. The present writ petition has been filed to espouse the cause of the wrongdoers who have virtually denatured, denigrated or ruined the Society. This court, therefore, feels reluctant to grant relief to those persons who themselves are wrongdoers. Moreover, pursuant to the impugned order of Dy. Registrar respondent No. 1 a new elected body has come into existence of which Sarva Sri R. D. Agarwal, Pawan Goyal and Navneet Bansal are respectively the President, Secretary and Treasurer. With the help of the executive authorities they have come in the effective control of the affairs of the temple and its properties on 28. 11. 2000. The affairs of the Society are now being managed by the newly elected body. The impugned order dated 13. 11. 2000 stands exhausted. In view of the election of the new body, the advisory committee which was granted recognition and validity by the Dy. Registrar has ceased to function. ( 11 ) THERE is another aspect of the matter. The petitioners had, infact, challenged the order dated 13. 11. 2000 by filing a Civil Suit No. 901 of 2000 on 16. 11. 2000 which was pending in the Court of IIIrd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Agra, when this petition was filed. The impugned order dated 13. 11. 2000 was the subject-matter of challenge. The petitioners could not be permitted to take recourse to two parallel proceedings. Realising this fact, the petitioner withdrew the suit on 24. 11. 2000. The withdrawal of the suit was permitted on the condition that a sum of Rs. 500 as cost of the suit shall be paid to Sri S. K. Gupta, advocate, who appeared for the defendant. Sri Radhey Shyam pointed out that the costs as directed by the trial court have not been deposited and, therefore, withdrawal has not taken effect. Sri Ashok Khare pointed out that the amount of costs of Rs. 500 has already been deposited through a Treasury Challan. This controversy is unnecessary. The fact remains that the petitioners challenged the impugned order by means of a civil suit. The factual aspect of the controversy could be decided in the suit itself. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was, therefore, unnecessary. 500 has already been deposited through a Treasury Challan. This controversy is unnecessary. The fact remains that the petitioners challenged the impugned order by means of a civil suit. The factual aspect of the controversy could be decided in the suit itself. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was, therefore, unnecessary. ( 12 ) IN the light of the above facts and subsequent developments which had taken place, the petitioners are obviously not in the effective control of the affairs of the society. They have now nothing to do with the management and governance of the temple and its property. Interference with the running of the Society by this Court at this stage would lead to chaotic conditions and a vacuum is likely to occur. This Court would be slow enough to put hurdles, in any manner, in the smooth functioning of the Society. ( 13 ) THE present writ petition as it stands is misconceived and no relief can be granted to the petitioners who themselves were the wrongdoers and have ceased to function. Equity is not in their favour. The petition falls and is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. .