H. L. GOKHALE, C. J. AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. ( 1 ) 1. Heard Mr. R. C. Dwivedi in support of these appeals and Mr. K. Sahi appears for the respondents. ( 2 ) ALL these appeals seek to challenge the common order passed by learned single Judge on 29th September, 2005 whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions and interfered with the amended bye-laws on the basis of which election to the Committee of Management of a degree college was held in the year 2003. ( 3 ) WHAT has happened in all these matters is that the original bye-laws of the concerned society provided that if any amendment is to be brought about to the bye-laws of the society necessary resolution must be passed with 3/4 majority and a notice of at least one month ought to be given to the members of the society. In the present case, it is not disputed that the concerned Committee of Management came into power on 12th April, 1998 and it brought about an amendment on 3rd May, 1998, which is obviously within one month from the date on which it came into power. It is clear that no notice of one month was given before the amendment was brought about. The original bye-laws provided that the managing committee will consist of not less than 15 and not more than 24 members but the number was brought down to 9. Thereafter an election was held in the year 2003 on the basis of this amended bye-laws. ( 4 ) A number of writ petitions were filed. Petition No. 12729 of 1998 was filed to challenge the order of the Vice Chancellor dated 2nd February, 1998 disapproving the election of the Committee of Management with a direction that the election of the Committee of Management be held through smt. Veena Srivastava, Secretary of Dugdheshwar Nath Vidyalaya Society along the list of 356 members excluding those who are dead. . Petition no. 30504 of 2003 was filed to challenge the approval of the Vice chancellor dated 7. 4. 2003 to the elected body, which came into power after the election was held in the year 2003. Petition No. 11291 of 2002 was filed to challenge the decision of the Assistant Registrar under the societies Registration Act, 1860 dated 23. 10. 2000, who approved the amended bye-laws. 4. 2003 to the elected body, which came into power after the election was held in the year 2003. Petition No. 11291 of 2002 was filed to challenge the decision of the Assistant Registrar under the societies Registration Act, 1860 dated 23. 10. 2000, who approved the amended bye-laws. Petition No. 45644 of 2002 was also filed to challenge the approval of the amended bye-laws and Petition No. 19695 of 2003 was filed to challenge the Vice Chancellors order dated 7. 4. 2003 approving the election. The petitions were filed by different counsel, which were heard together by the learned Single Judge. Amongst other grounds one of the ground which was canvassed before him was that one month notice was not given to the members concerned before the amendment was resolved to be approved. This is clearly recorded by the learned Single Judge in his judgment and thereafter he has given a finding that it is obvious that the meeting held on 3. 5. 1998 was in complete violation of the aforesaid bye-laws as there could not have been 30 days notice from the date of election. Learned Single Judge, therefore, set-aside the bye-laws and directed fresh election which was, however, to be held after verifying the membership of the members concerned. It is this judgment and order, which is under challenge in all these appeals. ( 5 ) MR. Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the amended bye-laws were passed long back and that thereafter election has been held and that the matter ought to be sent to the Assistant registrar since determination of some facts was involved. ( 6 ) WE are of the view, that on the face of it there is no question of going into the question of facts in as much as the dates are very clear. The bye-laws have been amended within one month from the date on which the committee of Management was elected on 12th April, 1998. If that is so there is nothing further to be looked into. This clear error of law learned Single Judge detected and, therefore, rightly interfered into the approval given to the amended bye-laws by the authorities concerned. The consequence was that the election had to be set-aside and a new election had to be directed. If that is so there is nothing further to be looked into. This clear error of law learned Single Judge detected and, therefore, rightly interfered into the approval given to the amended bye-laws by the authorities concerned. The consequence was that the election had to be set-aside and a new election had to be directed. There were some disputes of membership and, therefore, learned Single Judge observed that membership will have to be finalised before the parties proceeded to the election. In our view, there is no error in the order of learned Single Judge. All these appeals stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. .