R. K. AGARWAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS special Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18-1-2002, passed by the learned Single Judge, in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3207 of 2002 wherein the learned Single judge has held that an appeal lies before the commissioner of the Division concerned under section 12-D (2) of the Societies Registration act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and if an appeal is preferred against the order dated 29-1-2002, impugned in the aforesaid writ petition, within for night from the date of issuance of a certified copy of this order, the learned Divisional Commissioner shall dispose of the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to other necessary parties including the caveator respondent no. 4 in the writ petition. ( 2 ) WE have heard Shri Arun Tandon, learned counsel for the appellants-writ petitioners and Shri Vashistha Tiwari learned counsel for the respondents No. 4 and 5 and the learned standing counsel for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. ( 3 ) SUCCINCTLY, facts of the case are that Madarsa Arabia Mishbahul Uloom, Ahmad Nagar, Rampur Mahuabari, Tahsil and district Deoria has been registered as a Society, under the provisions of the Act on 6-7-2001 of which the appellant writ petitioner No. 2 is alleged to be the Manager/secretary. It appears that there was already a Society, registered in the name of Madarsa Arabia Mishbahul Uloom Ahmad Nagar, Rampur, Mahuabari Deoria. On an objection raised by one Shri Aftab Alam, the Assistant Registrar Firms Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur, issued notice to the appellants-writ petitioners on 1-12-2001 informing them that the registration granted in their favour was liable to be cancelled under Section 12-D (1) of the Act in as much as a society in the name and style is already existing. The appellants-writ petitioners asked for a copy of the said objection which according to them, had not been supplied to them though they submitted their explanation. The Assistant Registrar, respondent no. 1, vide order dated 29-1-2002, cancelled the registration of the appellant-writ petitioners Society. Shri Aftab Alam has got issued an order from the District Minority Welfare officer, Deoria, on 2-1-2002 directing the single operation of the accounts of the Institutiton and recognizing him as manager of the Institution. The Assistant Registrar, respondent no. 1, vide order dated 29-1-2002, cancelled the registration of the appellant-writ petitioners Society. Shri Aftab Alam has got issued an order from the District Minority Welfare officer, Deoria, on 2-1-2002 directing the single operation of the accounts of the Institutiton and recognizing him as manager of the Institution. ( 4 ) EVEN though the orders dated 29-1-2002 passed by the respondent No. 1, 2-1-2002 passed by the District Minority Welfare officer, Deoria, 4-1-2002 and 11-1-2002 passed by the Director. Minority Welfare, U. P. Lucknow, are concerned, they were challenged by the appellants before this Court in Writ petition giving rise to the present Special Appeal, it appears that before the learned Single Judge, the learned counsel for the appellants, had argued only the question of the validity of the order dated 29-1-2002 passed by the respondent no. 1, as would be clear from perusal of the order under appeal. The contention which was raised before the learned Single Judge, was only to the effect that, since, the impugned order dated 29-1-2002 had been passed by the respondent no. 1 in utter violation of the principles of natural justice and without jurisdiction, hence, the writ petition was maintainable. he learned Single Judge, proceeded to decide the writ petition on the basis of the oral submission made before him. After considering the provision of Sections 3 (2) and 12-D of the Act, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that these provisions apply in different situations and at different stages. Section 3 of the Act applies where a fresh registration is sought for by the society under the Act and another society is already registered under the Act with identical name. Where two societies are already registered with identical name, the registration of one of them is liable to be cancelled under Section 12-D of the Act. The learned Single Judge, further held that the appellants can challenge the order dated 29-1-2002 in appeal before the Divisional commissioner, under Section 12-D (2) of the Act. Where two societies are already registered with identical name, the registration of one of them is liable to be cancelled under Section 12-D of the Act. The learned Single Judge, further held that the appellants can challenge the order dated 29-1-2002 in appeal before the Divisional commissioner, under Section 12-D (2) of the Act. ( 5 ) SHRI Arun Tandon, learned counsel vehemently argued that in the writ pettion, the appellants had not only challenged the order dated 29-1-2002, but also the order dated 2-1-2002, passed by the District Minority, Welfare Officer, Deoria, order dated 4-1-2002 and the order dated 1l-1-2002, passed by the Director, Minority Welfare, U. P. Lucknow against which ho appeal lies and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing" the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of appeal to be filed under Section 12-D (2) of the Act. In any event, he submitted that the order dated 29-1-2002 had been passed in utter disregard and in gross violation of equity, fair play, and natural justice, in as much as the copy of the objection/complaint filed by Shri Aftab Alam had not been given to the appellants nor the same had been confronted to the appellants before passing the order. Thus, he submitted that the ground of alternative remedy of filing the appeal, shall not operate as a bar in approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India he also challenged the orders dated 2-1-2002 passed by the District Minority Welfare Officer, 4-l:2002 and 11-1-2002 passed by the Director, Minority Welfare, u. P. Lucknow on merits and accordingly submitted that they have been passed without any application of mind on the basis of the ex-parte version of Shri Aftab Alam in collusion with Shri Abdul Wahid Siddiqui. ( 6 ) SHRI Vashistha Tiwari learned counsel submitted that it is not in dispute that a society in the same name and style as that of appellants-writ petitioners society already existed prior to 6-1-2001 when the appellants got the society registered. The existence of the earlier society in the same name was in full knowledge of the appellant-writ petitioners and by concealing this fact, the appellants had obtained the registration in order to grab the institution run by the earlier society. The existence of the earlier society in the same name was in full knowledge of the appellant-writ petitioners and by concealing this fact, the appellants had obtained the registration in order to grab the institution run by the earlier society. He further submitted that even though, in the writ petition, quashing of the orders dated 2-1-2002 passed by the District Mnority Welfare Officer, and 4-1-2002 as well as 1. 14-2002, passed by the Director, Minority Welfare, U. P. Lucknow, had been sought, but no arguments, at all, were advanced in that behalf before the learned Single Judge, and, therefore, the learned Single Judge, rightly did not enter into questions arising out of these orders. He further submitted that, admittedly, an appeal lies against the order passed by the respondent No. 1 under Section 12-D (1) of the Act, before the Divisional Commissioner, under Section 12-D (2) of the Act, hence, the learned Single Judge, was perfectly right in relegating the appellants to avail statutory alternative remedy of appeal. He also submitted that the question as to whether the fraud has been played or not in obtaining the registration of the society, can be dealt with suitably by the appellant authority and not by this Court, in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 7 ) HEARD the rival submissions of the parties and perused the entire record of the gase. We find that the respondent No. 1 had passed the order dated 29-1-2002 impugned in the writ petition, after giving show cause notice to the appellants-writ petitioners and they submitted reply and accordingly, a finding has been recorded that the registration of the society has been obtained by ,playing fraud and by concealing the fact that prior to it, a society in the same name was in existence. Thus, we are of the view that this finding requires adjudication on the facts which can properly be gone into by the Divisional Commisioner, in appeal, if it is so filed Under Section 12-D (2) of the Act. The principle of natural justice, in the strict sense, that the order has been passed without giving arty opportunity or show cause, does not apply in the present case so as to warrant by passing of statutory alternative remedy of appeal. The principle of natural justice, in the strict sense, that the order has been passed without giving arty opportunity or show cause, does not apply in the present case so as to warrant by passing of statutory alternative remedy of appeal. Thus, we find no legal infirmity in the impugned order under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge. ( 8 ) SO far as the question that the appellants had also challenged the orders dated 2-1-2002 passed by the District Minority Welfare officer and 4-1-2002 as well as 1-11-2002 passed by the Director, Minority Welfare U. P. Lucknow, in the writ petition, is concerned, suffice it to mention that in the oral submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner:, no challenge was made before the learned Single Judge, and whatever, arguments were raised, have been dealt with in the order under appeal. It the appellant-writ petitioners have any grievance to this effect that these points have hot been dealt with by the learned Single Judge, the only course open is to move an application of review of the order under appeal before. the learned Single Judge. In the special Appeal, this Court is to consider the validity of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the basis of materal which were admittedly placed before the learned Single-Judge. If no argument was advanced before the learned Single Judge challenging the validity of some of the orders, though same were mentioned in the writ petition, the same cannot be entertained in Special Appeal. In view of the foregoing discussions, the special Appeal fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .