RAKESH TIWARI, J. By means of this petition the order dated 25-5-2000 passed by the Assistant Registrar Annexure-7 to the writ petition has been challenged by which renewal of the registration of the society in favour of Respondent No. 3 has been made under Section 3-A of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Rashtriya Junior High School (Society), Babhaniyawan, Janghai, district Jaunpur was registered at Serial N. 258/1959-60. The Junior High School run by the Society is neither recognized nor is on grant-in-aid list of the Government and as such the Basic Education Act and Rules and Regulations framed thereunder do not apply to it. 3. The renewal of the certificate of registration was over due. On an application made by the Adhyaksha of the Petitioner Committee of Society, Assistant Registrar renewed the registration certificate vide order dated 24-3-1999 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition ). It is alleged that the respondent No. 3 got another society registered in the name and style of babhaniyawan Shiksha Samiti, Village and Post Babhaniyawan, which was registered at Serial No. 755/1995-96 dated 17-2-1996. 4. It appears from the record that Respondent No. 3 filed objection before the Assistant Registrar, who started proceeding on the question of renewal and decided the dispute of membership as well as dispute in respect of office bearers vide impugned order dated 25-5-2000. 5. It is contended by the Petitioner that Assistant Registrar has no jurisdiction to review his order dated 24-3-1999 and once the registration certificate is renewed, no one had any right to raise objection to the said renewal. He also contends that the Assistant Registrar became functus officio after he passed order dated 24-3-1999 in respect of renewal of certificate and if Respondent No. 3 had any grievance after renewal dated 24-3-1999 he could have represented his case before higher authorities and not before Assistant Registrar. 6. The second leg of contention of the Petitioner is that the Assistant Registrar had no jurisdiction to decide any dispute in respect of the validity of election of the office bearers of the Committee of Management and once it is determined that any such dispute exists, he had no option to make a reference of the dispute for its determination under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. 7. 7. It is further argued that he has no jurisdiction to decide or refer the matter under Section 25 (1) of the aforesaid Act on an objection raised by another registered society and as such findings recorded by the Assistant Registrar in the impugned order are perverse as they are without any basis. 8. Counsel for the Respondents submits that till 1986 one Ram Kunjan Shukla was the President and Laxmi Narain Shukla was the Manager of the Society. After the death of Ram Kunjan Shukla in 1986 one Shitla Prasad along with Laxmi Narain Shukla continued as President and Secretary respectively. Thereafter in the elections of Committee of Management of Society held on 15-9-1994 Jawahar Lal Yadav and Birendra Shukla were elected as President and Secretary respectively. This Society was renewed on 24-3-1999 for a period of five years with effect from 10-10-1995 to 10-10-2000. A rival Committee of Management is alleged to have been constituted on 15-9-1994 in which Dev Saran Yadav was elected as President and Vijai Bahadur Yadav, as Manager/ Secretary. 9. It has been stated that 1988-89 Ram Kunjan Shukla continued as President though he had expired in 1986 and as such Dev Saran Yadav, after constituting a forged Committee on 15-9-1994 under the signature of Ram Kunjan Shukla submitted the papers to the Assistant Registrar for renewal and imposed himself as President and Secretary. It is further contended that, in fact, there was no meeting on 15-9-1994 where Jawahar Lal Yadav as President and Birendra Kumar Shukla were elected as President and Secretary respectively. The Counsel submits that the allegations made by the Petitioner in Para 8 and 9 of the writ petition are wholly concocted and have no relevance in so far as Rashtriya Junior High School, Babhaniyawan, Janghai, Jaunpur is concerned and that the Petitioner has tried to confuse the things and has not come with clean hands before the Court. It is submitted that the allegation of the Petitioner that Respondent No. 3 has constituted and changed the name of Society as babhaniyawan Shiksha Samiti Village and Post Babhaniyawan, Jaunpur is misconceived and irrelevant for purposes of present case and, in fact, Babhaniyawan Shiksha Samiti is another registered society registered for the first time on 30-12-1995 as is apparent from the registration certificate. This society, registered on 30- 12-1995, run a nursery school for imparting education up to K. G. Standard and has got nothing to do with Rashtriya Junior High School, Babhaniyawan Society. Relying upon Annexure-6 letter dated 1-4- 1999 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) he submits that both the rival Committee of Managements of Rashtriya Junior High School, Babhaniyawan were called by the Assistant Registrar to given oral and documentary evidence on 22-4-1999, which was not a notice in respect of any dispute of Babhaniyawan Shiksha Samiti. It is stated that both the parties submitted their submissions and relevant papers and after hearing parties concerned. Assistant Registrar recorded categorical finding vide impugned order dated 25-5-2000 that Petitioner Dev Saran Yadav could not produce any original document in support of his claim and also could not prove as to when Sri Ram Kunjan Shukla had died in 1986, how he continued President of Management of Committee till 1989. 10. After considering the contentions of the rival parties and the evidence on record, the Assistant Registrar gave a finding of fact that the office bearers of the Committee of Management of Rashtriya Junior High School Babhaniyawan, Janghai, Jaunpur had filed notary affidavit and also gave statement that Committee of Management of the Respondents was valid committee. Under these circumstances the certificate of renewal under Section 3-A of the Act was issued in favour of Respondent No. 3. 11. On the basis of the above contentions, it is argued by the Counsel for the Respondents that since finding of fact, based on evidence, has been recorded by Assistant Registrar, it is not liable to be disturbed by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution. As the finding is based on admitted position between the parties, therefore, the petitioner can approach the State Government under Section 3-B of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 if it is aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Registrar or file a suit before the civil Court of competent jurisdiction. 12. As the finding is based on admitted position between the parties, therefore, the petitioner can approach the State Government under Section 3-B of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 if it is aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Registrar or file a suit before the civil Court of competent jurisdiction. 12. There is no dispute of the office bearers of the Society or about the election not having taken place within time specified in the Rules, but the case pertains to two different societies and the Petitioner having been registered in 1959 and registration of Respondent No. 3 having been registered in 1996, who is running a separate school, but it is dispute of renewal of the society, the pleas taken in Para 15 and 16 of the writ petition are misconceived. 13. In view of the position that emerges from the facts stated above, Committee of Respondent No. 3 was valid Committee and the Assistant Registrar has not committed any illegality or error apparent on the face of record in renewing the Samiti of Respondent No. 3 on the basis of statement given by the office bearer of the Committee of Management of the petitioner, it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,1950. 14. The writ petition is devoid of merits and it is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed. .