JUDGMENT Hon’ble Shishir Kumar, J.—This writ petition has been filed for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the notices of show-cause issued by Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Allahabad Region, Allahabad including notices dated 2.2.2010 and 11.2.2010 (Annexures 23 and 24 to writ petition). Further a writ in the nature of prohibition to respondents to initiate any proceeding in pursuance of notice impugned. 2. The facts arising out of writ petition are that there is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 under the name of Allahabad High School Society, Allahabad. Petitioner No. 2 is the Secretary of the Society. The registration of the society was renewed from time to time and lastly it was renewed for the period of five years with effect from 10.10.2005. The society has its own bye-laws, a copy of same has been annexed as Annexure 2 to writ petition. In an Annual General Meeting of the society, which was held on 27.11.2004, a decision was taken appointing two member Sub-Committee to consider amendments in the bye-laws for stream-lining the administration of the Society. On 10.9.2005, two member Sub-Committee submitted a report for the purposes of consideration to the Chairman and it was placed for consideration in the next Annual General Meeting held on 28.11.2005. In the said meeting, six member Amendment Committee was constituted for finalizing amendments to the bye-laws. A proceeding was conducted and a draft was finalized for the purposes of amendment in the bye-laws. It was considered and convened to the General Body for 28.5.2007. The amendment was accepted by General Body held on 28.5.2007. Intimation to this effect was given to Assistant Registrar on 29.5.2007 by means of communication accompanied by the amendment to the bye-laws. An affidavit to that effect was also filed by the deponent. The amendments so made do not contain any amendment to the objects of the Society nor any amendment in the name of the Society. Under the Societies Registration Act, there exist no provision requiring approval of any amendment to the bye-laws and amendments so made are self-operative from the date of amendment. The requirement is only under the Act of intimation of amendment to the bye-laws to the Assistant Registrar. The institutions run by the Society are recognised by the Indian Council of Secondary Education, New Delhi. The requirement is only under the Act of intimation of amendment to the bye-laws to the Assistant Registrar. The institutions run by the Society are recognised by the Indian Council of Secondary Education, New Delhi. On 6.11.2009, Morris E. Dan was elected as the Bishop of Lucknow Diocese. After taking over charge he filed an objection dated 30.9.2009 before the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Allahabad with regard to the amendments effected to the bye-laws. One Sri Vinod B. Lal claims to have been appointed as Director (Administration) of Lucknow Diocese in the month of October/ November, 2009. Objections to that effect was filed on 9.10.2009 and 11.12.2009. Certain queries were asked by means of notices. In response of said notice, information was supplied to this effect to the competent authority. A Writ Petition No. 65108 of 2009 was filed with a prayer for a writ of mandamus commanding respondent i.e. Assistant Registrar to decide the objection. The aforesaid writ petition was opposed by petitioners and it is pending for consideration. Failing which to obtain a relief in the said writ petition, second petition being Writ Petition No. 68521 of 2009 was filed by respondent No. 5 with a similar prayer. The said writ petition was disposed of finally directing respondents to decide by judgment and order dated 16.12.2009. 3. On 2.2.2010, the Assistant Registrar (respondent No. 3) has proceeded to issue notice to petitioners. Petitioners submit that intimation of the said proceeding and issuance of notice is beyond scope of authority of Assistant Registrar under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. In case any aggrieved person is having any objection regarding the validity of the amendment to the bye-laws, legal course available to him is to get declaration with regard to invalidity of the amendment to the bye-laws by filing the aforesaid suit. 4. Notices were issued to petitioners who have assumed the office of Bishop and Director (Administration) subsequent to September, 2009. They have no locus to maintain objections with regard to amendment of the bye-laws. There is no power to the Registrar under Section 12-D (b) regarding issuance of notice and there is no material nor any such fact stands recited in the said notice. Proceedings initiated by the notice was dated 2.2.2010 are beyond the scope of the authority of Assistant Registrar as is possessed in law which alone can be exercised by a statutory authority. Proceedings initiated by the notice was dated 2.2.2010 are beyond the scope of the authority of Assistant Registrar as is possessed in law which alone can be exercised by a statutory authority. Further submission has been made that in view of provision of the Act, Assistant Registrar in view of Section 12-D has got no power to look into the validity of amendment. The power conferred to the Registrar under Clause (b) is that to supervise regarding the object of the society if it is opposed to the public policy as the show-cause notice itself is bad in law, therefore, same is liable to be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that amendment in the bye-laws does not change the nature of object of the society, therefore, nobody can have any objection and authority who has issued show-cause notice alleged himself conferred a power under Section 12-D of the Societies Registration Act cannot be exercised by issuance of show-cause notice on the basis of objection filed by respondents. The Registrar has a power to cancel registration on the ground that society has changed the name contrary to the provisions of the Act or any other law for the time being enforced or the society is working and its object is opposed to public policy or the registration of certificate of renewal has been obtained by misrepresentation or fraud. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that amendment does not require approval. He has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Managing Committee, Khalsa Middle School and another v. Mohinder Kaur (Smt) and another, 1994 SCC (L & S) 24 and placed reliance upon paras 8, 9, and 10 of the said judgment. The same are being quoted below : 8. He has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Managing Committee, Khalsa Middle School and another v. Mohinder Kaur (Smt) and another, 1994 SCC (L & S) 24 and placed reliance upon paras 8, 9, and 10 of the said judgment. The same are being quoted below : 8. As regards the second submission of Shri Tarkunde with regard to restoration of the minority status of the institution after the amendment of the Rules and Regulations of the Society by resolution dated July, 1, 1979, the submission of Shri Mehta, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, is that the Rules and Regulations as amended by the resolution dated July 1, 1979 were registered with the Registrar, Firms and Societies, Delhi on March 13, 1980 and therefore, the amended Rules and Regulations came into effect only on the date of such registration and the said amended rules were not in force on December 31, 1979, the date of passing of the impugned order of removal of the respondent and on December 31, 1979, the school was a non-minority institution governed by the provisions of the Education Act and the Education Rules. In view of the said submission, the question which needs to be considered is, what is the date of the coming into force of the Rules and Regulations, which were amended by resolution dated July 1, 1979 ? 9. Section 2 of the Societies Registration Act prescribes that a society will have a Memorandum of Association which will contain the name of the society, the objects of the society and the names and addresses and occupations of the governors, their council, directors, committee or the governing body to whom by the rules of the society, the management of its affairs is entrusted. The said section also provides that in addition to Memorandum of Association, there would be Rules and Regulations of society which are also required to be filed with the Memorandum of Association for the purpose of registration of the society under Section 3 of the said Act. As regards alteration of the memorandum of Association provision is made in Section 12 which prescribes the procedure for altering, extending or abridging the purpose or purposes for which the society has been established. As regards alteration of the memorandum of Association provision is made in Section 12 which prescribes the procedure for altering, extending or abridging the purpose or purposes for which the society has been established. By Delhi Act 9 of 1954, certain amendments have been made in the Societies Registration Act as applicable in the Union Territory of Delhi and as a result Section 12-A has been inserted to make provision for registration of change of name etc. It reads as under : “12-A. Registration of change of name.—(1) Where a proposition of change of name has been agreed to and confirmed in the manner prescribed by Section 12, a copy of the proposition so agreed to and confirmed shall be forwarded to the Registrar for registering the change of name. If the proposed name is identical with that by which any other existing society has been registered, or in the opinion of the Registrar so nearly resembles such name as to be likely to deceive the public or the members of either society, the Registrar shall refuse to register the change of name. (2) Save as provided in sub-section (1), the Registrar shall, if he is satisfied that the provisions of this Act in respect of change of name have been complied with, register the change of name and issue a certificate of registration altered to meet the circumstances of the case. On the issue of such a certificate the change of name shall be complete. (3) The Registrar shall charge for any copy of a certificate issued under sub-section (2) a fee of rupee one or such larger fee not exceeding rupees five as the State Government may, from time to time, direct; and all fees so paid shall form part of the Consolidated Fund of India.” 10. Apart from the requirement contained in Section 12-A for registration of the change of name of a society with the Registrar, there is no requirement in the Societies Registration Act which requires registration of any amendment in the Memorandum of Association or the Rules and Regulations of a society to be registered with the Registrar. Even in the Companies Act, 1956, a distinction is made in the matter of alteration of the Memorandum of Association and alteration of the Articles of Association. Even in the Companies Act, 1956, a distinction is made in the matter of alteration of the Memorandum of Association and alteration of the Articles of Association. Under Section 18 of the Companies Act, it is necessary that the alteration of Memorandum of Association be registered with the Registrar of companies within the prescribed period and the alteration takes effect from the date of its registration and under Section 19(1), it is provided that the alteration shall have effect only if it has been duly registered in accordance with the provisions of Section 18. There is no such requirement with regard to registration of the alteration in the Articles of Association of the company. Here we are concerned with the amendment in the Rules and Regulations of the Society. In the absence of any requirement in the Societies Registration Act that the alteration in the Rules and Regulations must be registered with the Registrar, it cannot be held that registration of the amendment is a condition precedent for such an alteration to come into effect. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention of Shri Mehta that the amendment which was made in the Rules and Regulations by resolution dated July 1, 1979 did not come into effect till March 13, 1980 when the amended Rules and Regulations were registered with the Registrar, Firms and Societies. The said amendment should be treated to have into effect from the date on which the resolution making the said amendment was passed, i.e. July 1, 1979. As a result of the said amendment in the Rules and Regulations of the Society, the alterations made in the Rules and Regulations in 1963 were reversed and the position as it stood prior to the amendment of 1963 were restored. Consequently, the school which was a minority institution till the amendment of the Rules and Regulations in 1963 and had ceased to be a minority institution as a s result of the amendment in 1963 regained its status as a minority institution after July 1, 1979, when the rules and regulations were amended and the original position was restored. In view of the restoration of the minority character of the institution the provisions of the Education Act and the Education rules ceased to be applicable to the institution after July 1, 1979. In view of the restoration of the minority character of the institution the provisions of the Education Act and the Education rules ceased to be applicable to the institution after July 1, 1979. the impugned order of termination of the services of the respondent was passed on December 31, 1979, i.e., after the school had become a minority institution. The said order cannot, therefore, be held to be invalid on the ground that it was passed in contravention of Section 8 of the Education Act. The order passed by the Delhi High Court quashing the said order as well as the disciplinary proceedings cannot, therefore, be upheld. The respondent was placed under suspension on August 11, 1972 and continued under suspension till April 9, 1973 on which date Education Act came into force. In other words she was under suspension at a time when the Eduction Act was not in force. The order of suspension cannot be judged on the basis of the provisions of the Education Act and the Education Rules. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the direction of the High Court quashing her order of suspension.” 7. Further reliance has been placed upon a judgment in Sri Sanatan Dharam Sabha and another v. The Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, U.P., Lucknow and others, AIR 1989 All 189 . Placing reliance upon aforesaid judgment learned counsel for petitioners submits that this Court has taken a view that duty cast upon the society under Section 4-A of the Act regarding intimation of every change made in the rules has to be certified not less than six members of the governing body shall be sent to the Registrar within 30 days of the change. According to the aforesaid decision, the society has to sent to the Registrar of Societies the amendment or alteration in the rules or bye-laws within thirty days. 8. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate submits that in view of Sections 1, 2 and 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, duty cast upon the society is that seven members or more persons associated for any literacy, scientific or charitable purpose, or for any such purpose as is described in Section 20 of this Act, may, by subscribing their names to a memorandum of association, can file the same with the Registrar. Section 2 states that memorandum of association shall contain the name of society, objects of society and names, addresses and occupations of the Governors, Council, Directors, Committee and other governing body to whom by the Rules of the society, the management of its affairs is entrusted. Section 4 states regarding annual list of managing body to be filed. Section 12 gives the power regarding that the society which has been established for any particular purpose or purposes can be advisable to alter, extend or abridge such purpose to or for other purposes within the meaning of this Act. Section 12-D empowers Registrar to cancel registration in certain circumstances unless and until there is a violation of conditions laid down under Section 12-D, Registrar has got no power to cancel the same. The amendment made in the bye-laws does not needs approval, therefore, no notice under Section 12-D issued by the respondents, cannot be issued and that will be a proceeding itself is a futile effort and same is liable to be quashed or dropped. The society has already been renewed by order dated 29.9.2007. In such circumstances, learned counsel for petitioners submits that show-cause notice itself the bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that Section 12 of the U.P. Societies Registration Act needs approval by the Registrar of the amendment made thereunder. 10. Sri T.P.Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shailendra, Advocate has submitted that from perusal of the earlier bye-laws prior to the date of amendment, it is clear that name of the society was Allahabad High School Society and object was to undertake the management and to manage the schools in Allahabad which was known as Boys High School and Girls High School. As regards the membership there shall be four clauses of membership. (i) Ex-Officio members (ii) Life members (iii) ordinary members. Ex-Officio members will be (a) Bishop of Lucknow (b) Commissioner of Allahabad Division (c ) Collector of Allahabad as well as (d) Priest In-charge of all Saints’ Cathedral, Allahabad as well as (e) Secretary of Education Board of Lucknow Diocesan Council (f) Headmaster and Headmistress of Boys and Girls High School. There was criteria in the bye-laws regarding life members, ordinary members and honorary members. The officers of the society shall be the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer. There was criteria in the bye-laws regarding life members, ordinary members and honorary members. The officers of the society shall be the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer. Chairman was Bishop of Lucknow, unless and until he be unwilling to act will be the Chairman. Clause 18 of By laws says that Bishop of Lucknow will be having overriding power. Various other criterias were there which were necessary requirements given in the bye-laws and that was approved by the Registrar. Now by amending the bye-laws, the Constitution of the governing body was made, one A.R.Stefenson has been nominated as Chairman of the Allahabad High School Society, one John Taylor has been nominated Vice-Chariman and C.V.Innes Secretary and one Mrs. Neera Singh has been nominated as Treasurer and other members have been nominated. As regards, the Chairperson who was the Bishop of Lucknow has been omitted as well as Commissioner, Collector as well as Priest Incharge of all Saints’ Cathedral has been omitted in the bye-laws. Further submission has been made that institutions which were not included in the bye-laws in the Society has been included by making amendment. The contention raised by respondents is that in view of Rule 12 when a society is registered under the Act, change its object and its name, it has to be intimated to the Registrar within thirty days and if the Registrar is satisfied he will make the necessary entries but if the Registrar is of the view that amendments in the bye-laws made thereunder changes the object of the society or it is against the public policy in that contingency he has a power to adjudicate the matter and to give a verdict. 11. On an objection made thereunder, while exercising the power under Section 12-D, Registrar has issued only a show-cause notice. Petitioners have also filed a reply to that. Therefore, he cannot raise this objection before this Court that Registrar has got no power to issue a show-cause notice. Further submission has been made that writ petition itself is not maintainable in view of fact that it is only a show-cause notice to petitioners to adjudicate the rights of the parties. Petitioners have also filed a reply to that. Therefore, he cannot raise this objection before this Court that Registrar has got no power to issue a show-cause notice. Further submission has been made that writ petition itself is not maintainable in view of fact that it is only a show-cause notice to petitioners to adjudicate the rights of the parties. Learned counsel for petitioners have placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Madarsa Arabia Misbahul Uloom, Ahmad Nagar, Rampur, Mahuabari, Deoria and another v. Assistant Regisrrar, Firsms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur and others, 2002 (3) UPLBEC 2690 and has placed reliance upon para 7 of the said judgment. The same is being quoted below : “7. Heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the entire record of the case. We find that the respondent No. 1 had passed the order dated 29.1.2002 impugned in the writ petition, after giving show-cause notice to the appellants-writ petitioners and they submitted reply and accordingly, a finding has been recorded that the registration of the society had been obtained by playing fraud and by concealing the fact that prior to it, a society in the same name was in existence. Thus, we are of the view that this finding requires adjudication on the facts which can properly be gone into by the Divisional Commissioner, in appeal,if it is so filed under Section 12-D(2) of the Act. The principle of natural justice, in the strict sense, that the order has been passed without giving any opportunity or show-cause, does not apply in the present case so as to warrant bye passing of statutory alternative remedy of appeal. Thus, we find no legal infirmity in the impugned order under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge.” 12. Further reliance has been placed regarding maintainability of writ petition and relied upon Division Bench judgment of this Court in L.M.L. Ltd. Kanpur v. Union of India and others, 2004(5) AWC 5034 and relied upon paras 3 and 4 of the said judgment. The same are being quoted below : “3. We have perused the impugned orders. These orders have only asked the petitioner to produce certain documents. In our opinion, these notices do not amount to any adverse order against the petitioner. Hence the petition is premature. The same are being quoted below : “3. We have perused the impugned orders. These orders have only asked the petitioner to produce certain documents. In our opinion, these notices do not amount to any adverse order against the petitioner. Hence the petition is premature. Moreover, if any adverse order is passed against the petitioner, he has an alternative remedy to approach the E.S.I. Court under Section 75 of the E.S.I. Act. In Special Director and another v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another, 2004 AIR SCW 416, the Supreme Court deprecated the practice of the High Court of entertaining writ petitions against a show-cause notice. 4. The writ petition is premature and is dismissed at this stage.” 13. Further reliance has been placed upon judgment in Special Director and another v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another, 2004 (3) SCC 440 . In this judgment, Court has taken a view that unless and until High Court is satisfied that show-cause notice is nullity for want of jurisdiction of the authority concerned to even investigate the fact as held, writ petition challenging the show-cause notice should not be entertained. Reliance has been placed upon para 5 of the said judgment. The same is being quoted below : “5. This Court in a large number of cases has deprecated the practice of the High Courts entertaining writ petitions questioning legality of the show-cause notices stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with the participation and in the presence of the parties. Unless, the High Court is satisfied that the show-cause notice was totally non est in the eye of law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority to even investigate into facts, writ petitions should not be entertained for the mere asking and as a matter of routine and the writ petitioner should invariably be directed to respond to the show-cause notice and take all stands highlighted in the writ petition. Whether the show-cause notice was founded on any legal premises is a jurisdictional issue which can even be urged by the recipient of the notice and such issues also can be adjudicated by the authority issuing the very notice initially, before the aggrieved could approach the Court. Whether the show-cause notice was founded on any legal premises is a jurisdictional issue which can even be urged by the recipient of the notice and such issues also can be adjudicated by the authority issuing the very notice initially, before the aggrieved could approach the Court. Further, when the Court passes an interim order it should be careful to see that the statutory functionaries specially and specifically constituted for the purpose are not denuded of powers and authority to initially decide the matter and ensure that ultimate relief which may or may not be finally granted in the writ petition is accorded to the writ petitioner even at the threshold by the interim protection, granted.” 14. Further reliance has been placed upon a judgment in Shiksha Samiti Degree College,Garua Maksudpur and others v. Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, U.P. Lucknow, AIR 1990 All 110 . Learned counsel for petitioners submits that this Division Bench of this Court has held that Registrar while granting certificate which is accompanied by the bye-laws of the Society as the bye-laws is the part and parcel of the registration and if some amendment has been made in bye-laws they have to be incorporated in the register under Section 4(A) of the Act. The Registrar at that time is entitled not only to find as to whether the meeting which made the amendment had taken place or not but also to consider and apply his mind to the controversy if it arises before him whether the amendment is contrary to the provisions of the Act and Rules. Further he has to see that the amendment is not such which destroys the very purposes of the society for its incorporation and if such circumstances arises the Registrar under Section 12-D of the Act can cancel the registration. The Court has given an opinion that Registrar has a power to do so and it is not correct to say that if the amendment in the bye-laws is intimated, the Registrar should simply finding out the fact of passing the resolution by the Committee of Management and nothing more or nothing less if power is curtailed to that extent indicated the object of making amendment be bye-passed. Para 7 is relevant for the said purposes. The same is being quoted below : “7. Para 7 is relevant for the said purposes. The same is being quoted below : “7. Sri S.K.Verma, counsel for the petitioner, referred to a decision of a Division Bench reported in 1984 All LJ 583, Maha Narayan Pandey v. Registrar. His submission is that the power of the Registrar is limited to examine the fact of resolution having been passed or not and that it does not have the power to go into legality or illegality of the resolution. In support, reliance has been placed on paragraph 9. Curious it is, that Sri R.N.Singh, learned counsel for the respondent, also placed reliance on that very paragraph.” 15. In such circumstances, learned counsel for respondents submits that the stage is premature and Registrar will see after giving opportunity to the parties that whether the amendment made in the bye-laws is correct or not. 16. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel. 17. From the record it appears that this Society has been formed for the purposes of imparting education and there were certain criteria, an Ex-Officio members are Bishop of Lucknow, Commissioner of Allahabad as well as Collector of Allahabad as well as Priest Incharge of All Saints’ Cathedral, Allahabad. The Chairman of the Society was Bishop of Lucknow and according to bye-laws he was having an overriding power to declare invalid any resolution of Governing Body which in his opinion contravenes the Constitution. The subsequent bye-laws amended alleged to be enforced in 2007 deletes various persons who were one of the necessary person to be ex-Officio member of the society but this Court at this moment has to see only regarding the jurisdiction of the Registrar-respondent under the Societies Registration Act that whether the amendment in the bye-laws needs any approval by the Registrar or not. The contention of petitioners cannot be accepted in view of fact that in case duty is cast upon the society to get it registered with bye-laws regarding functioning and powers of the Society, then if some amendment is made in the bye-laws that also needs no approval. This contention of petitioners cannot be accepted. From perusal of Section 12-D (b) of the Act, it clearly gives a power to the Registrar to look into its activities or purposed activities have been or are or will be subversive of the objects of the society or opposed to public policy. This contention of petitioners cannot be accepted. From perusal of Section 12-D (b) of the Act, it clearly gives a power to the Registrar to look into its activities or purposed activities have been or are or will be subversive of the objects of the society or opposed to public policy. Therefore, if the Registrar comes to conclusion prima-facie in view of the amendment of the bye-laws that it needs consideration or in any way it is against the object of the society then he can issue a show-cause notice to that effect regarding the genuineness of the amendment and objects of the Society. Further it has to be considered that whether the writ petition filed by petitioners against a show-cause notice is maintainable or not. In Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2006(12) SCC 28 (AIR 2007 SC 906) the Apex Court has taken a view that in case notice of demand directing payment of cess has been issued then the Courts while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ordinarily may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining the writ petition questioning a notice of show-cause unless and until it is established that it is without jurisdiction. In Union of India v. Hindalco Industries, 2003 (5) SCC 194 , the Apex Court has held that High Court should not interfere at the stage of show-cause notice. In Union of India and others v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28 , the Apex Court while considering the show-cause notice has held regarding maintainability of the writ petition against a show-cause notice. The Apex Court has held that mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action because it does not amount to adverse order which effects right of any party unless and until same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. Mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of any one, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable. Relevant paras are 13, 14 and 15. Same are being reproduced below : “ 13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Special Director v. Mohd. Relevant paras are 13, 14 and 15. Same are being reproduced below : “ 13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, Ulagappa v. Divisional Commr., Mysore, State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, etc. 14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an averse order which affects the rights of any party unless and same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and / or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance. 15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge-sheet.” 18. In Special Director and another (supra) the Apex Court has held that unless and until it is established that show-cause notice is without jurisdiction, authority concerned has no jurisdiction to investigate, the writ petition is not maintainable. 19. In Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation Ltd., (1998) 9 SCC 576 , the Apex Court has taken a view that a show-cause notice issued to the assessee by Excise Authority involving the question whether a particular item is excisable or not. The Apex Court has held that quashing the notice by the High Court is improper as it requires investigation of the fact and has to be decided by authority themselves. The Apex Court has held that quashing the notice by the High Court is improper as it requires investigation of the fact and has to be decided by authority themselves. Further it has been informed to the Court that petitioner has already submitted a reply to the show-cause notice, therefore, in such circumstances, it will be appropriate to adjudicate the matter by the relevant authority on the basis of relevant records to adjudicate whether the amendments made in the bye-laws by petitioners was valid or not and whether the object of the society meaning in the initial bye-laws has been changed or not or whether it is against public policy. All these have to be adjudicated on the basis of show-cause notice, therefore, in my opinion, it will not be appropriate in view of settled principle to interfere at this stage on the basis of show-cause notice which is impugned in the writ petition. 20. In view of Section 12 Registrar has got full power to see regarding validity of amendment inferred by the Society by the Registrar. If an authority has power to register a society on the basis of rules and regulations of the bye-laws then in case of some amendment is made thereunder in the bye-laws, Registrar of the Society has full power to take into consideration the said fact. Further in view of various decisions of this Court as well as the Apex Court, normally against a show-cause notice, writ is not maintainable. It cannot also be held that Registrar has got no jurisdiction to issue a show-cause notice in view of Section 12-D of the Act. 21. In view of aforesaid fact, in my opinion, writ petition is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed, however, without imposing any cost. 22. Respondent-Registrar is directed to decide the dispute between parties after affording full opportunity to petitioners as well as respondent-objector. ————