JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Sounsel for the Assistant Registrar, Allahabad and Sri Dharam Pal Singh, the learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Raj Kumar Singh, for the private respondent. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.1.2000 passed by the Assistant Registrar whereby the authority has rejected the objection of the petitioner and has directed to proceed with the matter under Sections 3 and 4 of the Societies Registration Act with regard to the application of respondent No. 3 for the renewal of its Society. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 22.12.2000 passed by the State Government under Section 3-B of the Act. The facts alleged by the petitioner in the writ petition is, that a Society by the name of ‘Thakurdwara Samiti’, hereinafter referred to as the ‘old Samiti’ was registered under the Societies Registration Act on 31.5.1963. According to the petitioner, a series of resolution was passed between the year 1963 to 1970 terminating the membership of ineffective members and also resolving to induct new members. The petitioners alleged that by a resolution of 3.3.1965 the membership of ineffective members was terminated and five new members were included. By another resolution of 6.9.1966, membership of five old members was terminated and five new members were inducted. Similarly, by a resolution dated 15.12.1966, 6.6.1969 and 1.7.1970 membership of old members was terminated and new members were inducted. By a resolution of 3.12.1970, it is alleged that six members were removed from the membership of the Society and that a unanimous resolution was passed to change the name of the Society as “Shyam Sunder Ganga Bridge Mission, Prayag, Allahabad”, hereinafter referred to as the ‘new Society’. Based on the aforesaid resolution, it is alleged, that the bye laws of the Society was modified/changed and the memorandum of association was amended and the name of the Society was changed and a resolution to this effect was passed on 8.1.1971. Pursuant to the aforesaid resolution, it is alleged, that the petitioners forwarded the papers to the Registrar of the Societies and a new Society by the name of Shyam Sunder Ganga Bridge Mission Prayag was registered on 5.4.1972 under the Societies Registration Act. The petitioner submitted that since then, the new Society was functioning and the old Society became defunct/did not exist. 3. The petitioner submitted that since then, the new Society was functioning and the old Society became defunct/did not exist. 3. The petitioners in the writ petition contended that the old Society was running an educational institution by the name of ‘Shri Radha Krishna Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Phaphamau, Allahabad’ and upon the change in the name of the Society, the new Society is running the institution and is in control and in possession of the said institution and that the petitioner No. 2 is the Manager and his signatures has been duly attested by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari. Not only this, the name of the new Society has been mutated in the revenue record. It is alleged that in 1997 the respondent No. 3 tried to take physical possession of the institution which led to a civil suit No. 298 of 1997 being filed, in which, an injunction was granted in favour of the petitioners against respondent No. 3. Based on the action of respondent No. 3 and the injunction granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner vide letter dated 2.5.1997 informed the Assistant Registrar that the old Society had dissolved/merged with the petitioner Society. 4. Pursuant to an order of this Court, the Assistant Registrar was directed to produce the original records of the two Societies and, upon a perusal of the record, the Court finds that the petitioner applied for renewal of its registration under Section 3-A of the Act on 10.10.1995, i.e., after 23 years from the date of its registration, which was renewed on 20.5.1996. On 28th August, 1999, i.e., after 36 years the respondent applied for renewal of the registration of the old Society. On this application, the Assistant Registrar issued a notice to the petitioner inviting objections and, after considering the matter, the Assistant Registrar, by the impugned order dated 11.1.2000, rejected the objection of the petitioner and, thereafter by an order dated 22.11.2000, renewed the registration of the old Society. The petitioner filed a reference under Section 3-B of the Act against the rejection of its objection which reference was rejected by the State Government by an order dated 22.12.2000 and consequently, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. The petitioner filed a reference under Section 3-B of the Act against the rejection of its objection which reference was rejected by the State Government by an order dated 22.12.2000 and consequently, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the objection of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the resolutions of the old Society dated 3.12.1970 and 8.1.1971 was never intimated to the Registrar and that the alleged Society did not follow any procedure for the dissolution of the Society, as provided under Section 13 of the Act nor such procedure, if initiated, was intimated to the Registrar. The Assistant Registrar also held that the petitioner’s Society was a separate and distinct Society from that of the old Society and that the two Societies are two distinct registered bodies and that there was no evidence to show that both the Societies were one and the same. 6. Sri Ojha, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a perusal of the application of respondent No. 3 for renewal of the registration of the old Society indicates that no reason whatsoever was given for the delay in moving the application for renewal after 36 years from the date of its registration and, in the absence of any sufficient cause being shown, the authority committed an error in rejecting the objection of the petitioner, inasmuch as, sufficient cause was mandatorily required to be shown, as provided under Section 3-A(5) of the Act. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in Prabandhak Sabha, Rauhata Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Rauhata, Agra and another v. Deputy Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, Agra and another, 2004(4)AWC 2885. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in view of the resolutions of the Society, dated 3.12.1970 and 8.1.1971, the name of the old Society had changed into a new name and that the old Society, in fact, merged with the new Society. The learned counsel submitted that both the Societies are one and the same and therefore, the question of renewal of the old Society does not arise and such renewal could not be granted by the authority. 8. The learned counsel submitted that both the Societies are one and the same and therefore, the question of renewal of the old Society does not arise and such renewal could not be granted by the authority. 8. On the other hand, Sri Dharampal Singh, the learned senior counsel for respondent No. 3 submitted that the petitioners’ objection before the Assistant Registrar was that the old Society had dissolved or merged with the new Society, and now, before this Hon’ble Court, a new plea has been raised, namely, that the two Societies remained the same except that the name of the old Society has changed from ‘Thakurdwara Samiti’ to that of ‘Shyam Sunder Ganga Bridge Mission’. The learned counsel submitted that all the resolutions filed by the petitioners were forged and fabricated documents and no proof was filed whatsoever before the Registrar to show that the old Society had dissolved or merged with the new Society. The learned counsel submitted that the old Society is distinct and different from the new Society and that members of the old Societies are different from the members of the new Society. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, the Court finds that in so far as sufficiency of reasons to be given under Section 3-A(5) of the Act is concerned, the Court is of the opinion, that the stage to consider this objection has not as yet arrived before the Court. The petitioners have not challenged the renewal of the Society in favour of respondent No. 3. The petitioners have only challenged the order of the Assistant Registrar dated 11.1.2000 by which the objection of the petitioners has been rejected and the authority has directed to proceed with the application of the respondent No. 3 with regard to the renewal of its Society under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. Consequently, the first ground urged by the petitioners does not hold merit at this stage and cannot be considered. 10. With regard to the second submission, a specific finding has been given by the authority that the resolutions dated 31.12.1970 and 8.1.1971 were never placed before the Registrar. No proof has been filed by the petitioners before the Registrar to indicate that this finding is perverse. Nothing has been brought on the record to indicate that the resolutions were filed before the Registrar. No proof has been filed by the petitioners before the Registrar to indicate that this finding is perverse. Nothing has been brought on the record to indicate that the resolutions were filed before the Registrar. The Court has also perused the original record and does not find that the two resolutions were placed before the authority at any point of time. The record only indicates that the petitioners intimated the Assistant Registrar for the first time on 2.5.1997 intimating the Registrar that the old Society had merged/dissolved with the petitioners’ Society but no evidence was filed to show as to how the dissolution or merger had come across. 11. It may be stated here that the petitioner’s stand before the Registrar was that the old Society had dissolved and merged with the petitioners’ Society in the year 1972. For such purpose, the provisions of Section 13 of the Act comes into play which reads as under : 13. Provision for dissolution of societies and adjustment of their affairs.—Any number not less than three-fifths of the members of any society may determine that it shall be dissolved, and thereupon it shall be dissolved forthwith, or at the time then agreed upon, and all necessary steps shall be taken for the disposal and settlement of the property of the society, its claim and liabilities, according to the rules of the said society applicable thereto, if any, and, if not , then as the governing body shall find expedient, provided that, in the event of any dispute arising amount the said governing body or the members of the society, the adjustment of its affairs shall be referred to the principal Court of original civil jurisdiction of the district in which the [registered office of the society] is situate; and the Court shall make such order in the matter as it shall deem requisite: Assent required.—Provided that no society shall be dissolved unless three fifths of the members shall have expressed a wish for such dissolution by the votes delivered in person, or by proxy at a general meeting convened for the purpose; Government consent.—Provided that whenever any Government is a member of, or a contributor to, or otherwise interested in, any society registered under this Act, such society shall not be dissolved without the consent of the Government of the State of registration. 12. 12. There is nothing to indicate that the old Society had followed the procedure provided under Section 13 of the Act and had intimated the Registrar and, based on the said resolution, the old Society was dissolved and a new Society had come into existence. The records only indicates that the petitioners’ Society was registered on 5.4.1972. It is noteworthy to indicate here, at this stage, that when the petitioners’ Society was registered on 5.4.1972, the list of members of the new Society indicates that not one member was a member of the old Society. It seems that a concerted effort was made by the petitioners by a series of resolution passed on 3.3.1965 to 3.12.1970 by which the old members of the Society were removed and new members were inducted and consequently on 3.12.1970, when a resolution was passed to change the name of the Society, the same was passed by the members who had been inducted by the old Society. The Court finds that the resolutions dated 3.3.1965, 6.9.1966, 15.6.1966, 6.6.1969, 1.7.1970, 31.12.1979 and eventually 8.1.1971 were never placed or intimated to the Registrar. In the absence of any proof, it is difficult to adjudicate on these questions of fact. There is nothing to indicate that the old Society had merged with the new Society. The record indicates that the list of members of the office bearers of the old Society is different from the members of the office bearers of the new Society. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioners laid emphasis on the order of the Munsif (East), dated 9.10.1974, which was passed under Section 145, Cr.P.C. to indicate that as far back as in the year 1974, the petitioner Society was in existence and was managing the affairs of the Educational Institution. This Court has perused the order of the Munsif and does not find anything to support the stand of the petitioners with regard to dissolution/merger or change of name of the old Society with that of the new Society. The order of Munsif does not indicate that the two old Societies had merged with the new Society. 14. It may be stated here that the petitioners had taken a different stand before the Registrar. The petitioners had taken a stand that the old Society had dissolved and merged with new Society, namely, with the petitioners’ Society. The order of Munsif does not indicate that the two old Societies had merged with the new Society. 14. It may be stated here that the petitioners had taken a different stand before the Registrar. The petitioners had taken a stand that the old Society had dissolved and merged with new Society, namely, with the petitioners’ Society. Before this Court, a new plea was taken that only the name of the Society was changed. In my view, even this plea raised by the petitioners cannot be sustained for the reason that in the year 1972 when the new Society was alleged to have come into existence, there was no provision under the Societies Registration Act for change of the name of the Society. Section 12-A of the Act was introduced in the Societies Registration Act by U.P. Act No. 52 of 1975, which provides a procedure for change in the name of the Society. But prior to 1975 there was no provision for change in the name of the Society. Further, there is nothing to indicate that the procedure was followed by the old Society and intimated to the Registrar. 15. In view of the aforesaid, the Court is of the opinion, that the objections raised by the petitioners with regard to the renewal application made by respondent No. 3, for renewal of the Society, was rightly rejected. Such disputed questions of fact can only be decided in a suit. 16. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. ————