JUDGMENT R. Gururajan, J.—This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.6.1998 passed in W.P. Nos. 7662-63 of 1996 by the learned Single Judge. 2. The facts of the case are as under: Sarvajanika Vidya Samsthe and Sri Siddegowda are the Appellants and were the Petitioners before the learned Single Judge. Sarvajanika Vidya Samsthe is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960. It came into existence in the year 1970. There were 13 persons when the society was registered and thereafter 20 members were admitted. They had not paid their subscription fee. Notices were issued in the year 1981 and on 4.10.1981, the defaulters were removed. New members were included. In all, there were 51 members to the society as on 4.10.1981. In the year 1996, 48 persons were members, three members having died. On 26.2.1996, General Body Meeting of the Society was held and new office bearers were elected. As per the bye-law of the society, the General Body consists of 13 persons out of which one of them will be the Head Master of the Institution. 18 persons submitted a petition under Section 25 of the Act to the District Registrar-the first Respondent seeking relief of cancellation of the General Body Meeting and also to remove the Secretary, President and other executive committee members from their respective offices. Notices were issued to the elected members. They appeared and opposed the application. Among 18 persons who were signatories, only 13 persons were members as on 26.2.1996. Seven persons filed affidavits before the Registrar stating that they had not subscribed their signature to the application. They wanted their names to be deleted from the cause list of the petition. The Registrar initiated suo motu proceedings. According to the Petitioners, no issues were framed, no evidence was recorded. On 12.3.1996, the Registrar passed an order declaring that the Annual General Body held on 26.2.1996 was illegal. He directed the society to hold a meeting consisting of 15 persons who according to him were the only genuine members of the society. of these 15 persons, 4 persons had already died. Appellants filed a Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Registrar. After hearing, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. This order is challenged in this appeal. 3. Notice was issued. Respondents have entered appearance. 4. Heard Sri T.N. Raghupathy, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant. of these 15 persons, 4 persons had already died. Appellants filed a Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Registrar. After hearing, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. This order is challenged in this appeal. 3. Notice was issued. Respondents have entered appearance. 4. Heard Sri T.N. Raghupathy, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant. He argues that Section 25 did not give any power to the Registrar in terms of the findings of the learned Single Judge. According to the learned Counsel, the power that is available to the Registrar is limited in character. The Registrar cannot annul a meeting in terms of his submissions. He also says that notice as such was not given resulting in denial of opportunity to the parties. He also says that the impugned order is beyond the powers of the Registrar. He would say that the incident of 1981 is sought to be interfered with after long lapse of time. He relies on several judgments. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Respondent supports the order. 6. Material on facts would reveal that the Appellant-society was established with a laudable object of establishing educational institution. In the year 1981, 51 persons were admitted as the members of the society. The Annual General Body Meeting was conducted and 51 members were admitted as members on 4.1.1981. The Annual General Body Meeting was also held from time to time. On 2.1.1984, some of the Respondents alleged irregularities and alleged that the society was not functioning properly and hence an Administrator has to be appointed in the matter. An enquiry was held in the year 1992 and thereafter the Registrar dismissed the appeal in 1992. Subsequently, a General Body Meeting was conducted in1995. The General Body Meeting held on 26.2.1995 was challenged by way of an application before the Registrar under Section 25 of the Act. The Registrar of society, after hearing has passed on order on 13.3.1996. The said order was challenged before the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, Writ Appeals were filed in W.A. Nos. 3002-03 of 1998. Orders were passed by the Division Bench. That was challenged by way of a Special Leave Petition in SLP No. 15123-24 of 1998. The Apex Court after hearing has chosen to remand the matter for fresh disposal by the Apex Court. Thereafter, Writ Appeals were filed in W.A. Nos. 3002-03 of 1998. Orders were passed by the Division Bench. That was challenged by way of a Special Leave Petition in SLP No. 15123-24 of 1998. The Apex Court after hearing has chosen to remand the matter for fresh disposal by the Apex Court. After the order of the Appellate Court, the matter was listed from time to time. In fact, it was dismissed for non prosecution on 16.2.2005 and thereafter the same was restored. Once again, the appeal stood dismissed for non-prosecution on 8.6.2005. The same was restored on 28.6.2005. As we mentioned earlier, the essential contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act did not give any power to interfere in a matter like this. According to the Appellant, powers are limited in character. Let us see whether power is available to the Registrar or not in the given circumstances. 7. Section 25 power is a special power vested with the Registrar in the matter of proper functioning of the society. Section 25(1)(c) provides for a power to the Registrar to require the governing body to call General Body Meeting or the society and in the event of the General Body declaring to do so, he himself has the power to summon the General Body Meeting. This would provide for an implied power available to the Registrar for the purpose of direction to call a General Body Meeting or to call a General Body by itself. The argument of no enquiry with regard to the membership, if accepted would defeat the very object of Section 25(1)(c) of the Act. In fact, the learned Single Judge has ruled in para 6 of his order that if the argument of want of power is accepted, then it would result in destruction of the power available to the Registrar. Learned Single Judge, in our view has rightly ruled that if the Registrar wants to exercise his power under Section 25, it should be made known and declared as to who constitute the members of the General Body. If there is no identity regarding the members of the General Body to whom the notice be issued, it is not possible for him to indicate the constitution of the General Body. If there is no identity regarding the members of the General Body to whom the notice be issued, it is not possible for him to indicate the constitution of the General Body. When the issue itself is as to who constitutes the General Body, then necessarily he has to give a finding with regard to membership as well. These findings as contained in para 6 did not in any way violate Section 25 of the Act. Learned Single Judge after noticing various aspects of the matter, rightly, in our view has chosen to hold that the argument of the Petitioners have no legs to stand. We are in agreement with the findings of the learned Single Judge, particularly in the light of effective implementation of the powers available to him under Section 25 of the Act. This argument of the Petitioner does not appeal to us. 8. Learned Counsel for the Appellants however relies on a few judgments in support of his submissions. The State of Gujarat Vs. Patil Raghav Natha and Others, AIR 1969 SC 1297 is a case dealing with the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879. In that case, the Court ruled that the Commissioner should not have gone into the question of the title. When the title of an occupant is disputed by any party before the Collector or the Commissioner and the dispute is serious, the appropriate course for the Collector or the Commissioner would be to refer the parties to a competent Court and not to decide the question of title himself against the occupant. This judgment is clearly distinguishable on facts. 9. The Registrar, after noticing the material facts has chosen to come to a conclusion that the admission of 51 members as members of the society has not been established. Learned Single Judge also notices that it is not shown to the Registrar that there has been any application submitted by 51 persons for admission as members of the society and that they are the valid members of the society. Learned Single Judge has accepted the findings of the Registrar in the light of the powers available to the Registrar. The findings of the Registrar so accepted by the learned Single Judge in our view do not require any re-consideration in this appeal. The order of the Registrar is based on facts. Learned Single Judge has accepted the findings of the Registrar in the light of the powers available to the Registrar. The findings of the Registrar so accepted by the learned Single Judge in our view do not require any re-consideration in this appeal. The order of the Registrar is based on facts. The same cannot be interfered with in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We therefore, agree with the learned Single Judge on this issue. 10. The next argument of the Appellant is that there is no hearing as such provided to the Petitioner. For the said purpose, he argues that nos specific notice as such was issued to each one of the 51 members. Admittedly, in the case on hand, notice has been issued to the society. It is the duty of the society to either provide the correct details and addresses to the Registrar or the society at least, must request the Registrar to issue a separate notice in this regard. In the case on hand, admittedly, the society was defending the case with regard to the membership. No allegation as such is made against the society. The society has also chosen to file a Writ Petition and Writ Appeal in this Court. In the given circumstances, as rightly ruled by the learned Single Judge, no separate notices need be given in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Even otherwise, no substantial prejudice is shown to us for the purpose of nullifying the order of the Registrar. There is substantial compliance of rules of natural justice and we are satisfied that the order cannot be set aside on the ground of no notice to individual members particularly in the light of the notice to the society and after hearing the society. 11. Two judgments were relied upon with regard to notice. There can be no quarrel with regard to notice but the notice issue has to be decided on the facts of each case. Since we have come to a conclusion on facts that there is substantial compliance, we do not want to disturb the order of the Registrar confirmed by the learned Single Judge. 12. The last argument advanced before us is that there is an inordinate delay in proceeding against the Appellant. It is no doubt true that the General Body Meeting was held in the year 1984. 12. The last argument advanced before us is that there is an inordinate delay in proceeding against the Appellant. It is no doubt true that the General Body Meeting was held in the year 1984. Proceedings factually were initiated challenging the General Body proceedings. That ultimately ended in the year 2002 in terms of the material available on record. As rightly noticed by the learned Single Judge that these proceedings would be an answer with regard to delay in the matter. Learned Single Judge therefore is right in holding that the argument of inordinate delay cannot be accepted. Even otherwise, we see in terms of Section 25, that there exists no limitation. Reasonable time is available to the Respondent in the light of the earlier proceedings as rightly ruled by the learned Single Judge in his order. Even otherwise, we are of the view that any illegality committed by a party cannot be perpetuated and any such perpetuation would be ruining the object in terms of Section 25 of the Act. Taking an overall view of the matter and taking into consideration, the material facts and the material documents, we are of the view that no case as such is made out to dislodge the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge in a detailed manner in this appeal. 13. Appeal stands accordingly rejected. No costs. 14. We have pronounced the order in W.A. No. 3002 of 1998. We have dismissed the appeal by a detailed order. 15. Sri Karumbaiah, learned Counsel says that in the light of dismissal of the appeal in W.A. No. 3002 of 1998, the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 34431 of 2000 has become infructuous. His submission is accepted. W.P. No. 34431 of 2000 is rendered unnecessary in terms of the submission made by Sri Karumbaiah, learned Counsel.