By The Court—This is an appeal filed by a Committee of Management of an institution established by a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 through its alleged Manager Pan Singh.2. It may be stated at the outset that the appeal has been preferred by Pan Singh who was not a party in Writ Petition No. 42809 of 2007 and a recall application filed by him has been rejected. The appellant has, therefore, sought leave to appeal against the order dated 23rd September, 2010 passed by the learned single Judge.3. The filing of this appeal has to be understood in the backdrop of the litigation that has given rise to this challenge by Pan Singh.4. The dispute appears to have begun way back in the year 1992 when the elections of the Committee of Management were held on 14.12.1992 in which Netra Pal Singh claimed himself to be elected as Manager. The tenure of the Committee of Management so elected is three years. For the purposes of financial transactions of the institution, the Basic Education Officer is required to attest the signatures and the signatures of Netra Pal Singh as manager were attested on 21st December, 1992. It is alleged that the list of office bearers so elected were submitted before the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits. The respondent no. 4-Lakhan Singh is stated to have objected to the said elections as projected by Netra Pal Singh and an order was passed on 4th August, 1993 against Netra Pal Singh. The same was assailed by Netra Pal Singh in Writ Petition No. 28212 of 1993 in which an interim order was granted on 28.10.1993.5. The claim of Lakhan Singh was that elections had been held on 14.12.1992 and that his signatures had been attested on 31.12.1992. The Assistant Registrar had passed an order on 13.10.1993 in favour of Lakhan Singh against which an interim order was passed in the writ petition referred to hereinabove.6. Netra Pal Singh claimed that he had held subsequent periodical elections on 27.12.1995, 23.12.1998 and 30.12.2001. His signatures were alleged to have been attested on 27.03.2002. With this new development, the earlier writ petition of year 1993 was dismissed as infructuous on 7th May, 2002.7. Netra Pal Singh claimed that he had held subsequent periodical elections on 27.12.1995, 23.12.1998 and 30.12.2001. His signatures were alleged to have been attested on 27.03.2002. With this new development, the earlier writ petition of year 1993 was dismissed as infructuous on 7th May, 2002.7. The Basic Education Officer after dismissal of the writ petition as infructuous cancelled the attestation of the signatures of Netra Pal Singh and attested the signatures of the respondent no. 4-Lakhan Singh on 30.09.2002. This was again assailed by Netra Pal Singh in Writ Petition No. 46020 of 2002, which was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Basic Education Officer to pass a fresh order.8. The Basic Education Officer on 27th January, 2003 passed an order in favour of Lakhan Singh which was assailed by Netra Pal Singh in Writ Petition No. 7855 of 2003.9. In between, the Assistant Registrar acknowledged the list of office bearers as submitted by respondent no. 4-Lakhan Singh on 03.10.2002 against which Writ Petition No. 10197 of 2003 was filed and the said writ petition was allowed on 10th March, 2003. The aforesaid judgment has been filed along with the counter affidavit and is available on the records of Writ Petition No. 56384 of 2008. It was held by this Court that the dismissal of the earlier writ petition of 1993 as infructuous did not in any way affect the subsequent developments and, therefore, the order of the Deputy Registrar dated 3rd October, 2002 was illegal. However, it was left open to the Assistant Registrar/Deputy Registrar to decide the matter and take appropriate decisions in accordance with law.10. The Assistant Registrar appears to have again passed an order on 19th July, 2003, which was assailed by Netra Pal Singh and an order of status quo was passed on 18.09.2003 in Writ Petition No. 41092 of 2003.11. During the pendency of this litigation, the rival parties Netra Pal Singh and Lakhan Singh appear to have held elections. Netra Pal Singh alleged that he held elections on 28.11.2004 in which he was elected as Manager and Lakhan Singh staked that elections were held on 10.10.2004.12. During the pendency of this litigation, the rival parties Netra Pal Singh and Lakhan Singh appear to have held elections. Netra Pal Singh alleged that he held elections on 28.11.2004 in which he was elected as Manager and Lakhan Singh staked that elections were held on 10.10.2004.12. The Basic Education Officer on 7th July, 2004 had passed an order against Lakhan Singh which was challenged by him in Writ Petition No. 42367 of 2004 in which no interim orders appear to have been passed on a statement that was made on behalf of Netra Pal Singh that Lakhan Singh had not been removed or derecognized as Manager. This order is dated 08.10.2004.13. The Basic Education Officer again passed an order on 27.09.2006 attesting the signatures of Netra Pal Singh and subsequently on 26.10.2006, he attested the signatures of Lakhan Singh and cancelled the signatures of Netra Pal Singh on 2nd July, 2007, against which Netra Pal Singh filed Writ Petition No. 61711 of 2006.14. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction that the petitioner may file a representation before the Deputy Registrar/Assistant Registrar, who may decide the matter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties.15. The two writ petitions filed earlier namely Writ Petition Nos. 41092 of 2003 and 7855 of 2003 were dismissed as infructuous on 23.11.2006 leaving it open to the contesting parties to raise their grievances before the appropriate forum if they are aggrieved by any subsequent actions and orders passed by the concerned authorities. This was done in view of the admitted position of the fresh elections as claimed by the rival parties held in the year 2004.16. In view of the aforesaid situation arising out of the orders dated 23.11.2006 and 13.11.2006 referred to hereinabove, the Assistant Registrar proceeded to pass orders on 2nd June, 2007 holding the claim of respondent no. 4-Lakhan Singh to be acceptable on the ground that the earlier writ petitions have been dismissed as infructuous. Aggrieved by these orders Netra Pal Singh filed Writ Petition No. 42809 of 2007, which is the subject matter of the present appeal.17. The challenge in this appeal is to the action of Netra Pal Singh withdrawing the said writ petition through an application moved by him and supported by an affidavit of one Ram Pal Singh describing himself to be the Pairokar of Netra Pal Singh. The challenge in this appeal is to the action of Netra Pal Singh withdrawing the said writ petition through an application moved by him and supported by an affidavit of one Ram Pal Singh describing himself to be the Pairokar of Netra Pal Singh. The said application was allowed and the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 1st July, 2008. The appellant-Pan Singh moved two applications one for substituting himself as Manager in place of Netra Pal Singh and the second praying for a recall of the order dated 1st July, 2008 on the ground that Netra Pal Singh had resigned from the office of Manager on 27.02.2008 and the election to the said office was held on 27.04.2008 with due permission from the Basic Education Officer, in which the appellant-Pan Singh was elected as Manager. The prayer was, therefore, to recall the order of dismissal dated 1st July, 2008 on the ground that the said order was collusively obtained by the respondent no. 4-Lakhan Singh in league with Netra Pal Singh. The withdrawal of the writ petition according to the appellant-Pan Singh prejudiced his claim, inasmuch as, the signatures of the appellant-Pan Singh had been attested on 29.04.2008.18. The recall application has been rejected, with no orders on the substitution application, on the ground that Netra Pal Singh himself had filed the application and in the event the appellant-applicant is aggrieved, he may raise his objections either before the Assistant Registrar or before any competent authority in respect of his claim. The withdrawal application discloses that Netra Pal Singh allegedly submitted a notarial affidavit in favour of Lakhan Singh that he has been elected as Manager on 07.10.2007 and that he has no objection to his functioning as Manager.19. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has been cheated by this collusive transaction and the learned single Judge has demonstrably erred in not allowing his substitution application and has further committed a mistake by not recalling the judgment dated 1st July, 2008. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order passed by the Assistant Registrar on 2nd June, 2007 would substantially prejudice his rights as he is claiming succession to the office of Manager after the recognition of Netra Pal Singh, who had raised a dispute in respect of the order passed by the Assistant Registrar dated 2nd June, 2007. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order passed by the Assistant Registrar on 2nd June, 2007 would substantially prejudice his rights as he is claiming succession to the office of Manager after the recognition of Netra Pal Singh, who had raised a dispute in respect of the order passed by the Assistant Registrar dated 2nd June, 2007. He, therefore, submits that the dispute had not become infructuous nor did Netra Pal Singh have any authority to withdraw the writ petition in respect of the said order so as to cause prejudice to the subsequently elected Manager. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the writ petition deserves to be restored to its original number with permission to the appellant to contest the same.20. Sri K.A. Ansari, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4-Lakhan Singh submits that the appellant has no cause of action surviving and, therefore, he should not be granted any leave to file this appeal and the appeal on his behalf is not maintainable. He further submits that the appellant has concealed material facts in relation to three other writ petitions being Writ Petition Nos. 56384 of 2008, 26235 of 2009 and 53109 of 2010 wherein the appellant has challenged all these issues and had not been favoured with any interim order, though the said writ petitions are still pending. He submits that the appellant Pan Singh by playing a game of hide and seek is trying to secure an order from this Court in order to enliven a dead right and which even otherwise, cannot be considered in this appeal when the appellant himself has raised a challenge to the subsequent orders passed in favour of the answering respondent that are pending consideration in the aforesaid writ petitions. Sri Ansari, therefore, contends that the appeal be dismissed with costs.21. In view of the facts that have been brought on record and are evident from a perusal of the records of the writ petition referred to hereinabove, leave no room for doubt that the appellant has already questioned the legality of the orders passed in favour of the respondent no. 4-Lakhan Singh. The list of the office bearers as submitted by Lakhan Singh has been accepted by the Assistant Registrar on 19th July, 2008. The signatures of Lakhan Singh as Manager have been attested on 6th September, 2008. 4-Lakhan Singh. The list of the office bearers as submitted by Lakhan Singh has been accepted by the Assistant Registrar on 19th July, 2008. The signatures of Lakhan Singh as Manager have been attested on 6th September, 2008. In the aforesaid backdrop Pan Singh filed Writ Petition No. 56384 of 2008 raising a challenge to the claim of Lakhan Singh in which no interim orders had been passed in his favour and the writ petition is still pending.22. We had summoned the records of the said writ petitions referred to hereinabove to verify the same. The respondents have already filed counter affidavit in the said writ petitions.23. Apart from this, appellant-Pan Singh has filed Writ Petition No. 26235 of 2009 assailing an order passed by the District Basic Education Officer on 20th March, 2009. The said order was in relation to the place of running of the institution as also the office bearers entitled to manage the institution. The District Basic Education Officer in the said order has held that the place where the institution is being run is Arya Madhyamik Vidyalya, Nathupur Sahawar of which Lakhan Singh is the valid Manager. The claim of the appellant-Pan Singh that he is running the institution on some other land, has been rejected and held to be invalid. In this writ petition filed by the appellant-Pan Singh no interim orders were passed by this Court and the same is also pending consideration. It is thus clear from a perusal of the records of the said writ petitions that substantially the same issue in relation to the same institution managed by the same Society is still pending consideration and is a subsequent event to which challenge has been raised by the appellant-Pan Singh.24. The third writ petition being Writ Petition No. 53109 of 2010 has again been filed by the appellant-Pan Singh. The present appellant has raised a challenge to the order dated 14.08.2010 passed by the District Basic Education Officer holding that the appellant-Pan Singh has failed to establish the alleged elections as claimed by him and the earlier order passed on 19th June, 2010 was being cancelled and the order dated 20th March, 2009 is being restored. The present appellant has raised a challenge to the order dated 14.08.2010 passed by the District Basic Education Officer holding that the appellant-Pan Singh has failed to establish the alleged elections as claimed by him and the earlier order passed on 19th June, 2010 was being cancelled and the order dated 20th March, 2009 is being restored. It is relevant to mention here that vide order dated 20th March, 2009 Lakhan Singh has been recognized as Manager by the District Basic Education Officer and subsequently the appellant-Pan Singh had obtained an attestation on 19.06.2010, which has been cancelled. It is thus clear that the challenge raised to the said order has also not been favoured with by any interim order by this Court and the said writ petition is still pending.25. The aforesaid facts, therefore, leave no room for doubt that these subsequent events shall govern the fate of the appellant-Pan Singh and the dispute in relation to the order dated 2nd June, 2007 has become redundant. Even otherwise the appeal which has been filed is against an order rejecting the recall application for setting aside the order dated 1st July, 2008. The dismissal of the writ petition by way of withdrawal on the part of Netra Pal Singh on 1st July, 2008 cannot in any way affect the rights of the appellant, inasmuch as, he was not a party to the said writ petition. His substitution application therein was also not allowed and accordingly, the recall application filed by him has been rejected leaving it open to the appellant to assail any order that may be passed for the redressal of his grievances before the appropriate forum and also allowing him to raise objections before the competent authority.26. In view of the above, the withdrawal of the writ petition by Netra Pal Singh would, therefore not in any way affect the rights of the appellant who has assailed the actions of the authorities in the three writ petitions referred to hereinabove, which are still pending.27. In the event, the appellant felt aggrieved by any orders of the Assistant Registrar or the Prescribed Authority, which was subject matter of challenge in the writ petition giving rise to this appeal, it was open to the appellant to have filed his own writ petition or to have sought amendment in Writ Petition No. 56384 of 2008.28. In the event, the appellant felt aggrieved by any orders of the Assistant Registrar or the Prescribed Authority, which was subject matter of challenge in the writ petition giving rise to this appeal, it was open to the appellant to have filed his own writ petition or to have sought amendment in Writ Petition No. 56384 of 2008.28. In the aforesaid circumstances, we find that it is not necessary to grant any leave to appeal to the appellant and consequently the application for leave to appeal as well as the appeal are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.(Appeal dismissed)_____________