ABHINAVA UPADHYA, J. Heard Sri A. R. Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amar Nath Dubey, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 5. 2. The writ petition challenges the order dated 27th July 2006 passed by the Deputy Director, Fisheries (Cooperative) by means of which the registration of the petitioner society has been cancelled. The petitioners society was registered on 22nd May 2006 under the orders of the Deputy Registrar. 3. The opposite party No. 5 filed a writ petition No. 3661 (MB) of 2006 challenging the order of registration passed in favour of the petitioner and the order dated 3. 5. 2006 by means of which the opposite party no. 5 was informed that since the proceedings for registration are already going on, therefore, he may become a member of new Society but his Society can not be registered. The Division Bench of this Court disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 19. 6. 2006 saying that the controversy involved disputed question of fact, but granted indulgence to the petitioner namely; the present opposite party no. 5 to file representation, which may be considered after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, by the Deputy Director Fisheries. In pursuance of the aforesaid liberty while deciding representation, the matter was considered by the Deputy Director and he has, this time found that the order of registration was obtained by misleading and giving incorrect facts and thus set aside the order aforesaid. 4. Initially the petitioner raised the question of jurisdiction of the Deputy Director to decide the matter but in view of the fact that the jurisdiction was conferred upon the Deputy Director by the Court, this plea has been given up. In regard to the plea of opportunity also there is no serious challenge as the petitioner was afforded due opportunity by the Deputy Director. 5. On merits, it has been vehemently urged by the petitioner that the very basis of consideration of the dispute by the Deputy Director is non-existent as the Deputy Director proceeded on assumption that the application of opposite party no. 5 for registration was actually filed or moved on 20. 2. 2006 but because of the collusion with the Chief Executive Officer, it has been shown to have been received on 3. 3. 2006. With this assumption that the opposite party no. 5 for registration was actually filed or moved on 20. 2. 2006 but because of the collusion with the Chief Executive Officer, it has been shown to have been received on 3. 3. 2006. With this assumption that the opposite party no. 5 actually has filed an application for registration of his Society on 20. 2. 2006, but the Chief Executive Officer has deliberately mentioned the date as 3. 3. 2006, the order of cancellation of registration of the petitioner society has been passed by the Deputy Director, Fisheries 6. The learned counsel for the opposite party no. 5 has, for defending the order, strongly urged that the aforesaid fact is not the main reason for cancellation of the registration of the petitioner society but in fact the petitioner society was not properly formed on the date when it is said that the application was moved as the Secretary Tafseer Ahmad was formally appointed as Secretary of the Society only on 2. 3. 2006. 7. We have considered the arguments and we have gone through the record. 8. The first and foremost question, is whether the application of opposite party no. 5 was actually moved on 20. 2. 2006 and that because of deliberate and malafide action of the chief Executive Officer, the date for moving the application was changed to 3. 3. 2006, and therefore, the registration of the petitioner is liable to be cancelled or not. Since this very plea was raised by the opposite party no. 5 in the writ petition filed by him and the High Court refused to entertain the plea after observing that disputed question of facts are involved in the writ petition and the Deputy Director of Fisheries mainly based the order onthis question, therefore, we find it appropriate to deal with it, first. 9. The photocopies of the application filed by the petitioner as well as by the opposite party no. 5 has been brought on record. The Chief Executive Officer Officer has filed his personal affidavit in which entire photocopies of the application alongwith annexures moved by the opposite party no. 5 have been annexed as Annexure No. CA-5 and C. A. 6 alongwith the registration certificates which are said to have been filed alongwith the application and were required to be annexed while applying for registration of the society. Annexure no. 5 have been annexed as Annexure No. CA-5 and C. A. 6 alongwith the registration certificates which are said to have been filed alongwith the application and were required to be annexed while applying for registration of the society. Annexure no. C. A. 5 is the photocopy of the application of opposite party no. 5 which shows that it is dated 20. 2. 2006 which date has been cut by putting a line and thereafter below it the date 3. 3. 2006 has been mentioned. The counsel for the opposite party no. 5 strenuously urged that this date 3. 3. 2006 is the handi work of the Chief Executive Officer and that it was not written by the Secretary or the Society of opposite party no. 5. 10. Under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, the Court is empowered to look into or confirm or verify the hand writing or the signatures when there is a dispute, with naked eye. 11. We have looked into the aforesaid documents and find that the date of the application was mentioned originally as 20. 2. 2006 but below the said date after underlining the date 20. 2. 2006 the date 3. 3. 2006 has been written. The figure 3 written in the date 3. 3. 2006 does not tally with the figure 3 which has been written by the Chief Executive Officer while receiving the application. The Chief Executive Officer has put the date 3. 3. 2006, under the endorsement of receipt. Neither figure 3 nor 6 which is hand written, on the application moved by opposite party no. 5 and the endorsement made by the Chief Executive Officer tallies with each other. In the date 20. 2. 2006 the figure 20 has been written by hand and figure 2 and 2006 are typed. It thus establishes, that the date 3. 3. 2006 does not appear to be in the hand writing of the Chief Executive Officer. 12. The fact that the application for registration was actually not moved on 20. 2. 2006 but was actually moved on 3. 3. 2006, also finds support from the fact that all the documents namely the caste certificates which were attached to the said application, are of the date after 20. 2. 2006. These certificates are dated 24. 2. 2006,27. 2. 2006, and 28. 2. 2006. In case the application was actually moved on 2. 2. 3. 2006, also finds support from the fact that all the documents namely the caste certificates which were attached to the said application, are of the date after 20. 2. 2006. These certificates are dated 24. 2. 2006,27. 2. 2006, and 28. 2. 2006. In case the application was actually moved on 2. 2. 2006 there was no occasion for the opposite party no. 5 to annex those documents which were not existing on the date on which the application is said to be moved and this supports the plea of the petitioner that the opposite party no. 5 actually moved the application on 3. 3. 2006 may be that he had prepared the application some times in February 2006 but could not move it prior to that, as the necessary certificate could not be obtained by them. 13. In Annexure No. CA-6 the opposite party no. 5 while asking that the original documents namely; 20 caste certificates and the extracts of Khatauni said to have been annexed to the application himself mentioned the date of application as 3. 3. 2006. In this application the opposite party no. 5 did not raise any grievance that his application was dated 20. 2. 2006 but it was wrongly mentioned as 3. 3. 2006. As a matter of fact there is nothing on record to show that at any point of time the opposite party no. 5 raised any grievance before the Chief Executive Officer in this regard and it was only in the writ petition that such a grievance was raised. 14. On the basis of such a plea which the opposite party no. 5 has utterly failed to establish, the registration of the petitioner could not have been cancelled. The Deputy Director was also swayed by the fact that the opposite party no. 5 has moved the application on 20. 2. 2006 and the Chief Executive Officer of his own made it 3. 3. 2006. The plea aforesaid, of opposite party no. 5 thus can not be sustained and is rejected. 15. We, therefore, are of the view that in case this fact had been taken into consideration that the proceedings of registration were initiated on the application of the petition, who moved the application, prior in time as against the application of the opposite party no. 5, the conclusion arrived at by the Deputy Director, would have been converse. 16. 15. We, therefore, are of the view that in case this fact had been taken into consideration that the proceedings of registration were initiated on the application of the petition, who moved the application, prior in time as against the application of the opposite party no. 5, the conclusion arrived at by the Deputy Director, would have been converse. 16. The Deputy Director also made an observation that the Cooperative Inspector did not make any enquiry or verification etc. before the registration was granted to the petitioner and that one member Sri Vijay Kumar Srivastava could not be a member of the Society because only a person who is permanent member of the Nyay Panchayat can become a member of the Society. 17. The aforesaid observation does not appear to be based on any enquiry being made nor it was in issue before the Deputy Director. Since the order passed by the Deputy Director is based on non- existent facts is perverse being against the material on record and in view of our finding that the opposite party no. 5 did move the application only on 3. 3. 2006 and not on 20. 2. 2006, the order dated 27. 7. 2006 passed by the opposite party no. 5, the Deputy Director, cannot be upheld, and the same is hereby quashed. 18. The alternative plea of the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 5 that the registration of the petitioner has wrongly been done, is not the subject matter of this petition nor this Court will look into such a grievance, even if, it so exists. In case the opposite party no. 5 feels aggrieved or has any grievance against the registration of the petitioner for any other reason whatsoever that is to say, on the grounds other than the present one, he is free to challenge the same in accordance with law. If such a challenge is made, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. 19. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. .