JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have claimed the following reliefs : (A) Issue order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing orders dated 3.8.2007 and 29.1.2007 (Annexure 19 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1 and 29.1.2007 (Annexure 11 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 2; (B) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful functioning of petitioner’s committee in pursuance of the orders dated 3.8.2007 and 29.1.2007 (Annexure 19 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1 and 29.1.2007 (Annexure 11 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 2; (C) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the some other suitable Administrative authority to enquire the Renewal of the Society of the respondent No. 3 regarding the papers filed by the respondent No. 3 after 26 years; (D) Issue a writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice; (E) Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows : The society named as Antahpuri Shiksha Samiti was registered with the Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 having its registration No. 678/1968-69, File No. 19107, dated 17.9.1968. The aforesaid society runs an educational institution, named as Antahpuri Inter College, Sabalpur, Post Mangalpur, district Kanpur Dehat. In the year 1974 the institution was accorded recognition as Junior High School. In the year 1981 the institution was upgraded as High School and recognised under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and, thereafter, in the year 1991 the institution was upgraded upto Intermediate. On 1.4.1991 the institution was brought on grant-in-aid list of the State Government upto the High School only. The date when the institution was brought on grant-in-aid Jagannath Prasad was the Manager of the committee of management as well as the Manager of the society. The address of the society was the address of the institution. Daya Shanker Rajput was the Principal of the institution from 1.7.1980 to 30.6.1999. The date when the institution was brought on grant-in-aid Jagannath Prasad was the Manager of the committee of management as well as the Manager of the society. The address of the society was the address of the institution. Daya Shanker Rajput was the Principal of the institution from 1.7.1980 to 30.6.1999. It appears that the registration of the said society was not renewed as the required under Section 3-A inserted by U.P. Act No. 52 of 1975 since 1979. 3. In the year 1992, on 22.1.1992 registration of new society in the name of Antahpuri Vidyalaya Shiksha Samiti, Sabalpur Antahpuri (Sabalpur), Post Mangalpur, Tehsil and district Kanpur Dehat was sought. The said society was registered with the registration No. 1257 dated 22.1.1992 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. At the time of registration, office bearers were Jagat Singh Rajput (President), Sri Krishna Rajput (Vice President), Dayaram Tripathi (Manager/Secretary), Umesh Kumar (Treasurer), Udai Singh Gaur, (Advisor), Dr. Suresh Singh, (Member), Balram Singh (Member), Ram Krishna Verma (Member), Krishna Kumar Singh (Member), Surendra Sewak Tripathi (Member) and Daya Shanker Rajput (Member). It also appears that the registration of the society, which was constituted and registered on 22.1.1992 was renewed time to time. Respondent No. 3, Sobh Nath Singh Rajput, son of Jagannath Prasad Verma, the alleged member of the committee of management filed the application before the Assistant Registrar claiming that the registration in the year 1992 has been obtained by filing fraudulent documents and by mis-representation and requested for the cancellation of the said registration. Alongwith the application the affidavits of Daya Ram Tripathi, Surendra Sewak Tripathi, Udai Singh and letter of Suresh Singh were filed, in which they have stated that they have not made any signature in the application for registration of the society in the year 1992 on the basis of which the said society claimed to have been formed. It also appears that the respondent No. 3 has moved the application for the renewal of the registration of the society constituted in the year 1968. On the said application society has been renewed from 1997 upto 2010. On the application of the respondent No. 3, Assistant Registrar issued notices to the petitioner and fixed the date of hearing. Both the parties have been asked to adduce the evidences in their support. The evidences adduced by both the parties have been confronted and the replies were sought. On the application of the respondent No. 3, Assistant Registrar issued notices to the petitioner and fixed the date of hearing. Both the parties have been asked to adduce the evidences in their support. The evidences adduced by both the parties have been confronted and the replies were sought. After hearing both the parties, Deputy Registrar by the impugned order dated 3.2.2007 cancelled the registration of the petitioner society. It has been held that the said registration has been obtained fraudulently on the forged signature of Daya Ram Tripathi and others, which they have denied in their affidavits. It is further submitted that the registration has been obtained on mis­representation that no society was in existence, while it was in existence. It has been further held that the registration of the society in the same name when one society was in existence was not justified. When one society was already in existence in the same name, no society could be constituted. Being aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Registrar petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 7855 of 2007. In the aforesaid writ petition by the interim order dated 13.2.2007 operation of the order passed by the Deputy Registrar was stayed. Respondent No. 3 filed Special Appeal No. 307 of 2007 against the interim order dated 13.2.2007. In the Special Appeal Division Bench of this Court on 28.3.2007 held that against the order of the Deputy Registrar appeal lies under Section 12-D (2) of the Act. Division Bench accordingly directed the petitioner to file the appeal before the Commissioner and the Commissioner has been directed to decide the appeal within the specified period. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner filed appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. Divisional Commissioner, Kanpur by the impugned order dated 3.8.2007 dismissed the appeal and confirmed order of the Deputy Registrar. Being aggrieved by the said order, present writ petition has been filed. 4. Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Ajit, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 and learned Standing Counsel. Learned Standing Counsel produced the record of the case. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Deputy Registrar has not given opportunity to cross-examine the persons, who have given the affidavits. He submitted that the petitioner society was validly constituted in the year 1992. Learned Standing Counsel produced the record of the case. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Deputy Registrar has not given opportunity to cross-examine the persons, who have given the affidavits. He submitted that the petitioner society was validly constituted in the year 1992. He submitted that the society in the year 1992 was constituted because the record of the earlier society was not traceable and when the record of the earlier society was traced, request was made for the merger of both the societies. He submitted that it is wrong to say that the registration of the society in the year 1992 was obtained by furnishing the fraudulent documents and by mis-representation. He submitted that all of sudden on 8.9.2006 an application was moved and the registration of the earlier society was renewed on 26.9.2006 from 1979 to onward, whereas the limitation for granting the renewal is one year under the provision of Section 3-A (4) of the Act. He submitted that though under the proviso renewal can be granted beyond the period of one year but in the present case while granting the renewal, no finding has been recorded for the sufficient cause. He submitted that the petitioner has filed the objections before the Deputy Registrar against the renewal of the registration but without consideration of the said objections, the renewal of the earlier society was granted and the petitioner’s registration has been cancelled. 6. Sri K. Ajit, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3 submitted that when one society was already in existence may be its registration has not been renewed, the new society in the same name for running the same institution could not be constituted and registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. He submitted that the registration No. 1257 dated 22.01.1992 was obtained by fraud and by mis-representation. Apart from the findings recorded in this regard, he submitted that : ? Daya Ram Tripathi suffers from the disease of parkinson and has never been signing but only putting his thumb impression. Daya Shankar Rajput got prepared an affidavit of Daya Ram Tripathi dated 13.1.1992 for the purpose of registration of a new society in the same name and style. ? Daya Ram Tripathi suffers from the disease of parkinson and has never been signing but only putting his thumb impression. Daya Shankar Rajput got prepared an affidavit of Daya Ram Tripathi dated 13.1.1992 for the purpose of registration of a new society in the same name and style. ? Affidavit of Daya Ram Tripathi filed in the year 1992, in which it was alleged that he was the Manager/Secretary of the society and in para 2 it was deposed that there was no registered society in the aforesaid name in the entire region. ? In the affidavit wrong address of Daya Ram Tripathi was given. ? Daya Ram Tripathi in its affidavit dated 6.11.2006 filed in the year 2006 has denied the execution of any such affidavit ever deposed by him. He also gave his correct address and has put his thumb impression. This affidavit has not been controverted. ? Branch Manager of State Bank of India has also issued certificate to the effect on 6.12.2006 that in the bank account Sri Daya Ram Tripathi uses his thumb impression. ? Other office bearers of the alleged society of Daya Shankar Rajput, namely, Shri Krishna Rajput, Balram Singh and Udai Singh have filed their affidavits against the claim set up by Daya Shankar Rajput and have denied to have signed any document for registration of the new society in the year 1992. These affidavits have also not been controverted before the Deputy Registration. ? Daya Shankar Rajput got prepared a lot of documents of resolutions in the year 2007 but in the back date to show his bonafide and to show that the new registration was done only because the file of old registration was not traceable in the office of Deputy Registrar, Societies, Kanpur due to creation of new office after bifurcation from Lucknow. ? It is interesting to note that none of such resolutions prepared on 15.8.1990 were placed and filed before the Deputy Registrar, Societies, while seeking registration but on the contrary, it was pleaded before the Deputy Registrar, Societies, that there was no registered society in the said name prior to 1992. The entire resolutions have been prepared in the one and the same handwriting. The entire resolutions have been prepared in the one and the same handwriting. The resolution dated 25.5.1991 which is in consequence to the earlier one does not mention the day also because in the year 2007 it must have been difficult to know as to what was the day on 25.5.1991, the date in which the resoltuion was being prepared in the year 2007. ? It is also interesting to note that resolution dated 20.5.1991 specifically provides that in case if the papers pertaining to the registration of the earlier society were traced out, the new society shall merge in the earlier one but there is nothing like this in the application and affidavit submitted to the Deputy Registrar, Societies, in the year 1992 alongwith the new bye-laws. 7. He further submitted that in the year 1984 the Principal, Daya Shankar Rajput moved an application for the renewal of the society. On the receipt of the application, Deputy Registrar, Societies wrote a letter to the society at the address of the institution for the removal of certain defects. This letter was received by Daya Shankar Rajput on 8.11.1984 and a reminder was also received by him in the year 1986. Daya Shankar Rajput with ulterior motive has not taken any steps for getting the registration renewed and obtained the registration of new society in the year 1992. Daya Shankar Rajput assumes his post as Principal of the institution and claimed to be a man of confidence of the then Manager played fraud by preparing forged documents for the purpose of registration of new society in the same name of the society and got prepared the affidavit of Daya Ram Tripathi by putting forged signature on affidavit dated 13.01.1992 showing him as Manager/Secretary of the society. Jagannath Prasad continued as Manager of the committee of management of the institution as well as the Manager of the society upto 27.7.1992. Jagannath Prasad was the founder of the institution as well as Manager of the society. In the year 1992 Daya Shankar Rajput claimed himself to be Sansthapak, Daya Ram Tripathi as Manager of the institution and obtained the attestation of the signature of Daya Ram Tripathi by forging them in his own hand writing. On 30.6.1999 Daya Shankar Rajput retired from the post of Principal of the institution and on 11.9.2001 he became the Manager of the institution. On 30.6.1999 Daya Shankar Rajput retired from the post of Principal of the institution and on 11.9.2001 he became the Manager of the institution. The sequence reveals that he has planned the whole thing with the intent to become the Manager and to grab the institution. He further submitted that the present writ petition arises from the order of the Divisional Commissioner, who confirmed the order of Deputy Registrar cancelling the registration of the society constituted in the year 1992. Thus, the issue is only whether the cancellation of the registration of the society constituted in the year 1992 is legally correct. He submitted that the renewal of the registration of the society constituted in the year 1968 is not relevant. He further submitted that the finding of the Deputy Registrar and the Divisional Commissioner in the impugned order are finding of fact, which is neither perverse and nor based on no material and, therefore, such findings cannot be interfered by this Court exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Having heard rival submission of learned Counsel for the parties, I have gone through the various documents. 9. The present writ petition is directed against the order of Divisional Commissioner in appeal against the order of the Deputy Registrar cancelling the registration of the society in the year 1992. The question for consideration is whether the cancellation of registration of society claimed to have been constituted in the year 1992 is in accordance to the law or has been illegally rejected. The question for renewal of registration of the society constituted in the year 1968 is not the subject matter of consideration. 10. Deputy Registrar as well as Divisional Commissioner on the appraisal of the evidence have held that the registration of new society in the year 1992 had been obtained fraudulently and by mis-representation. It has been held that Daya Shanker Tripathi in its affidavit filed in the year 2006 has denied the execution of any affidavit in the year 1992. The averment of such affidavit has not been controverted by the petitioner before the Deputy Registrar. No evidence to the contrary have been adduced, inasmuch as the record reveals that no opportunity of cross-examination to Daya Shanker Tripathi has been sought. The averment of such affidavit has not been controverted by the petitioner before the Deputy Registrar. No evidence to the contrary have been adduced, inasmuch as the record reveals that no opportunity of cross-examination to Daya Shanker Tripathi has been sought. In this view of the matter, I do not see any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the Divisional Commissioner and the Deputy Registrar. Finding of both the authorities are based on material on record and can not be said to be perverse. There is no dispute that the society constituted in the year 1968 was a valid society. Merely because the registration of the society has not been renewed subsequently, it cannot be said that it was not inexistence. On account of the non-renewal of the registration of society may not be able to avail certain benefits, which was available to the registered society but it cannot be said that the said society was not in existence at all. The said society has not been dissolved under Section 13-A of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. In my view, new society can not be constituted in the same name for running the same institution during the existence of a society having the same object and cannot be granted registration in view of the provision of Section 3 (2)(a) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. 11. In view of the above, no interference is called for. Writ petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed. ———