ORDER 1. By this petition, the petitioners have assailed the validity, propriety and legality of the order Annexure P-l dated 13.3.2002 by which the respondent No. 4 has approved the appointment of respondent No.6 as in-charge Principal of petitioner No.1 school. Petitioner No. 1 Mission Higher Secondary School (hereinafter referred to as the 'Mission School') was founded in the year 1900 by the Seoni Church Board Mission Education Society The said school is in receipt of grant-in-aid and is an institution within the meaning of section 2 (e) of the M.P. Ashaskiya Shikshan Samstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karamchariyon Ke Vetano Ka Sandaya) Adhiniyam, 1978. It is no disputed that the Mission Society is registered as per registration Annexure P-6, and P-7 contains the amended rules and regulations of this society. It is also no disputed that the petitioner No.2 society viz. the Board of Secondary Education and Teachers Training of the Church of North India (hereinafter referred to as the 'BSE & TT') is also a registered society registered vide Annexure P-4 dated 17.4.1976 and its rules and regulations an contained in Annexure P-5. 2. The case of the petitioners, in short, is that the management of the Mission School has duly been transferred by the Mission Society to the petitioner BSE & TT as per minutes of the meeting Annexure P-8 & P-9 with the result, the petitioner No. 2 is administering and managing the petitioner No.1 and since the petitioner No.2 is a minority institution, it has its own choice to appoint a Principal in the institution as has beer held by the Supreme Court in the decision in the case of the petitioner, of which, copy has been appended as Annexure P-3 The petitioners have, therefore, challenged the order Annexure P-l and seek relief that the same be quashed and the respondents be restrained from interfering in the internal management of Mission Higher Secondary School. 3. Respondent No.1 to 5 have filed a common return while respondent No. 6 has filed a separate return. Respondents apart from challenging the locus standi of the petitioner No.2 BSE & TT to maintain a petition in respect of the appointment of the Principal of the Mission School, have stated that the petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 4. Respondents apart from challenging the locus standi of the petitioner No.2 BSE & TT to maintain a petition in respect of the appointment of the Principal of the Mission School, have stated that the petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 4. The issue with regard to the locus standi of the petitioner No.2 'BSE & TT (Board of Secondary Education and Teachers Training) was hotly contested The first and foremost question that, therefore, falls for consideration is whether this petition, in the absence of the Mission Society being a party, is maintainable. At the time when grant was made available, it is not disputed, Mission School was established, administered and managed by the Mission Society. The institution is in receipt of the grant are regulated and controlled by the provision of the M.P. Ashaskiya Shikshan Samsth (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karamchariyo Ke Vetano Ka Sandaya) Adhiniyam, 1978 and the rules framed thereunder. Section 2 (e) of the Adhiniyam defines 'institution' as under: "2 (e) 'Institution' means a non-Government school or non-Government educational institution for higher education for the time being receiving maintenance grant from the State Government or from the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Shiksha Anudan Ayog, as the case may be, established, administered and managed by a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (No. 44 of 1973) but does not include an institution established, administered and managed by – (i) the Central Government; or (ii) the State Government; or (iii) a local authority, or (iv) any agency managed, controlled, approved or sponsored by the Central Government or the State Government, as the State Government may, by notification, specify; (v) a non-trading corporation formed and registered under the Madhya Pradesh Non-trading Corporation Act, 1962 (No. 20 of 1962) or deemed to have been registered thereunder;" 5. From the definition, it is clear that the institution is a non-Government school established, administered and managed by a society registered under the M.P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973. Thus the managing committee of the school is an integral part of the society inseparable from the society and they both co-exist. From the definition, it is clear that the institution is a non-Government school established, administered and managed by a society registered under the M.P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973. Thus the managing committee of the school is an integral part of the society inseparable from the society and they both co-exist. Management has been defined by section 2 (g) of the Adhiniyam as under: "(g) 'Management' in relation to any institution means the governing body thereof within the meaning of the Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (No. 44 of 1973), and the expression 'management of the institution shall be construed accordingly;" 6. Under section 2 (g), therefore, the management of the school has to be the governing body thereof within the meaning of M.P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam. From the above provisions, it is clear that the governing body of the Mission School was the management in relation to the. Mission School and it alone was competent to maintain a lis on behalf of the Mission School. Even the Mission School was required to sue through its management, viz. the Society. The petitioner No.2 claims locus standi on the strength of the documents Annexure P-8 & P-9. Annexure P-9 contains extract Copy of the matters of school in Jabalpur Diocese, Seoni Jabalpur Damoh. There is a resolution dated 6.3.1998 to the effect that the management of the Mission Higher Secondary School, Seoni and the Mission English School, Seoni shall be administered and governed by the Board of Secondary Education and Teachers Training, MPCNI as per its rules and regulations w.e.f. 1.4.1998. It is further stated that the Committee felt that the Seoni Church Board Mission Education Society is to pass a resolution expressing the dissolution of the said Society to fulfil the legal requirements of the Registrar of Firms and Societies, M.P. Bhopal, in absence whereof, the full and final merge shall not come into force. In the context of this resolution, Annexure P-8 resolution has been passed to merge the management of Seoni Church Board Mission Education Society with the Board of Secondary Education and Teachers Training MPCNI. 7. From resolution Annexure P-9, it is clear that the petitioners were aware that for the transfer of the school and even for the transfer of its management, certain legal formalities were required to be completed. 7. From resolution Annexure P-9, it is clear that the petitioners were aware that for the transfer of the school and even for the transfer of its management, certain legal formalities were required to be completed. Section 21 of the M.P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 prohibits a society from acquiring or selling or transferring immovable property without prior permission of Registrar. Section 21 reads as under: "21. Society not to acquire or sell or transfer immovable property without prior permission of Registrar -- No immovable property shall be acquired or transferred by sale, gift or otherwise by the society without the prior permission of the Registrar in writing." 8. The petitioners claim that intimation with regard to the transfer of the management had been given by the petitioners to the Registrar of Firms and Society. In this context, if the letter of the Registrar, Annexure P-12 is examined, it becomes further manifest that the Registrar had also reminded the petitioner No.2 to make an application in accordance with section 21 and obtain permission with regard to the transfer of the property in respect of schools including the Mission Higher Secondary School. It is not shown that 'after receipt of this letter, any steps were taken to seek permission under section 21 of the M.P. Society Registrikaran Act. Since the School can sue through its management which, in accordance with the scheme under the M.P. Ashaskiya Shikshan Samstha Adhiniyam, can be through the society only and the Society which is in management of the petitioners is not the petitioner No.2, the petitioner No. 2 has no locus standi to maintain this petition to espouse the cause of the Mission Society or of the Mission School petitioner No.1 9. Another aspect of this case also disentitles the petitioner No. 2 from seeking the relief which has been claimed by the petitioners. Another aspect of this case also disentitles the petitioner No. 2 from seeking the relief which has been claimed by the petitioners. Annexure P-7 is a Copy of the amended rules and regulations of the Seoni Church Board Mission Education Society (Mission Society) in which powers and duties of the Mission Education Society have been enumerated Clause No. 2 of Annexure P-7 grants power to the society to appoint and remove the members of the staff and other servants of the institution except the Principal of the Mission Higher Secondary School, Seoni Clause 2 reads as under: "(2) To appoint and remove the members of the staff and other servants of the institution except the Principal of the Mission Higher Secondary School, Seoni and the Manager of the Mission Girls Primary School, Seoni, who shall be appointed and removed by the Seoni Church Board, the Foundation Society. " 10. Petitioner No.2 claims that through Annexure P-8 & P-9 resolutions, the management of the School has been transferred by the Mission Society to the petitioner No.2. Therefore, even assuming in favour of the petitioner No.2 that such a transfer was effected, only that part of the power could have been transferred which the Mission Society possessed. Since the Society did not possess the power to appoint Principal of the Mission Higher Secondary School, Seoni, that power was in any case not available to the petitioner No.2. The petitioner No.2, therefore cannot claim that the respondent No.4 had made any inroads in the rights of the petitioner No.2 in according approval to the appointment of respondent No.6. Since the petitioner No.2 has no locus standi to maintain this petition and the Mission Society is not before the Court and by an interlocutory application IA No. 3124W/02 the respondents have brought on record Annexure P-13 to show that the said Society has been superseded for a period of one year, no relief can be granted to the petitioners herein in relation to the subject matter of this petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.