JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—Writ Petition No. 11438 of 2006 has been filed by the Committee of Management, Shri Shakti Vidyapeeth Junior High School, Bendo, Karchhana, Allahabad and Shesh Narain Upadhyay claiming himself to be its Manager for quashing the order dated 14th February, 2006 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Allahabad by which Vidya Bhushan Shukla has been recognised as the Manager of the Committee of Management of the said Institution. 2. Writ Petition No. 55703 of 2006 has been filed by Shakti Shiksha Samiti, Allahabad with Vidya Bhushan Shukla and Rajni Kant Shukla as Secretaries of the Society for quashing the order dated 14th September, 2006 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Assistant Registrar’) by which direction has been issued under Section 3-A of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) for renewal of the registration of the Society on the basis of the papers submitted by Shesh Narain Upadhyay as the Secretary/Manager of the Society. 3. Writ Petition No. 47321 of 2007 has been filed by Shakti Shiksha Samiti, Bendo, Karchhana, Allahabad and Rajni Kant Shukla claiming himself to be its Secretary for a direction upon the State Government to decide the application filed by the petitioners for cancellation of the registration certificate of the Society issued in 1984 at the instance of Shesh Narain Upadhyay. 4. Writ Petition No. 63954 of 2007 has been filed by Shakti Shiksha Samiti, Bendo, Karchhana, Allahabad and Rajni Kant Shukla claiming himself to be its Secretary for quashing the order dated 20th November, 2006 passed by the Assistant Registrar by which the certificate issued on 10th October, 2005 for renewal of the registration of the Society registered earlier in 1968 has been cancelled. The petitioners have also sought the quashing of the order dated 5th November, 2007 passed by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad by which the appeal filed by the petitioners for setting aside the aforesaid order was dismissed. 5. Writ Petition No. 41633 of 2008 has been filed by Shakti Shiksha Samiti, Bendo, Karchhana, Allahabad and Shesh Narain Upadhyay claiming himself to be its Secretary for quashing the order dated 1st August, 2008 passed by the Assistant Registrar by which the registration certificate dated 30th April, 1984 and the subsequent renewal certificate of the Society have been cancelled under Section 12-D(1)(c) of the Act. 6. It transpires from the records of the writ petitions that the Shakti Shiksha Samiti (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Society’) was registered under the provisions of the Act on 13th September, 1968. This Society established a Junior High School by the name of Shri Shakti Vidyapeeth Junior High School, Bendo, Karchhana, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Institution’). The said Institution is a Junior High School and on the grant-in-aid list of the State Government. Vidya Bhushan Shukla was the Secretary of the Society and Manager of the Committee of Management of the Institution. In 1968 when the Society was registered, the registration of the Society was not for any fixed period since no time period was prescribed in the Act and it is only by U.P. Act No. 52 of 1975, which came into force on 10th October, 1975, that Section 3 of the Act was substituted and Section 3-A inserted in the Act for providing a time period of two years. The substituted Section 3 and the newly inserted Section 3-A of the Act are as follows : “(3) (1) Upon such memorandum and certified copy being filed alongwith particulars of the address of the Society’s office which shall be its registered address, by the Secretary of the Society on behalf of the persons subscribing to the memorandum, the Registrar shall certify under his hand that the Society is registered under this Act. There shall be paid to the Registrar for every such registration a fee of one hundred rupees: Provided that the Registrar may, in his discretion, issue public notice or issue notice to such persons as he thinks fit inviting objections, if any, against the proposed registration and consider all objections that may be received by him before registering the Society. There shall be paid to the Registrar for every such registration a fee of one hundred rupees: Provided that the Registrar may, in his discretion, issue public notice or issue notice to such persons as he thinks fit inviting objections, if any, against the proposed registration and consider all objections that may be received by him before registering the Society. (2) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1) the Registrar shall refuse to register a society, if after giving it an opportunity of showing cause against such refusal, he is satisfied that- (a) the name of the society is identical with that of any other society previously registered under this Act ; (b) the name of the Society sought to be registered uses any of the words, namely, ‘union’, ‘State’, ‘Land Mortgage’, ‘Land Development’, ‘Co-operative’, ‘Gandhi’, ‘Reserve Bank’ or any words expressing or implying the sanction, approval or patronage of the Central or any State Government or any word which suggests or is calculated to suggest any connection with any local authority or any corporation or body constituted by or under any law for the time being in force, or is such as is otherwise likely to deceive the public or the members of any other society previously registered under this Act. (c) any one or more of the objects of the society sought to be registered is not an object mentioned in sections 1 and 20 ; or (d) its objects are contrary to any other law for the time being in force. Explanation.—In this Act, the word ‘Registrar’ means a person appointed as such by the State Government, and includes an Additional Registrar, Joint Registrar, Deputy Registrar, or Assistant Registrar, on whom all or any of the powers of Registrar under this Act are conferred by general or special order of the State Government. 3-A. Renewal of certificate of registration.—(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) a certificate of registration issued under section 3 shall remain in force for a period of two years from the date of issue : Provided that a certificate issued before the commencement of the Societies Registration (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1974 (hereinafter in this section referred to as the said Act), shall remain in force for a period of two years from the date of such commencement. (2) A Society registered under section 3, whether before or after the commencement of the said Act, shall on application made to the Registrar within one month of the expiration of the period referred to in sub-section (1) and on payment of the fee specified in sub-section (3), be entitled to have its certificate of registration renewed for two years at a time ; Provided that in the case of a society registered before the commencement of the said Act, the Registrar shall refuse to renew certificate of registration if after giving it an opportunity of showing cause against such refusal, he is satisfied that any of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 3 exist in respect thereof. (3) There shall be paid to the Registrar with every application for renewal of the certificate of registration- (a) a fee of ten rupees, if such application is filed within the period of specified in sub-section (2); (b) an additional fee of five rupees, if such application is filed within one month of the date of expiration of the period specified in sub-section (2); and (c) an additional fee at the rate of two rupees per month or part thereof, if such application is filed beyond one month of the expiration of the period specified in sub-section (2). (4) Every application for renewal of the certificate of registration shall be accompanied by the certificate sought to be renewed unless dispensed with by the Registrar on the ground of its loss or destruction or other sufficient cause. (5) A society which fails to get its certificate of registration renewed in accordance with this section within one year from the expiration of the period for which the certificate was operative shall become an unregistered society; Provided that the Registrar may, for sufficient cause, allow an application for renewal more than one year after the expiration of the period for which the certificate was operative on payment of a fee of fifty rupees. (6) Where a certificate of registration is renewed in accordance with sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) such renewal shall operate from the date of expiration of the period for which the certificate was operative.” 7. (6) Where a certificate of registration is renewed in accordance with sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) such renewal shall operate from the date of expiration of the period for which the certificate was operative.” 7. Subsequently, by U.P. Act No. 11 of 1984, which received the assent of the Governor on 29th April, 1984 and which was published in the U.P. Gazette dated 30th April, 1984, Section 3-A of the Act was substituted by Section 3 of the Amendment Act and the period of registration of the Society was made five years. The said amendment is as follows : “3. Amendment of Section 3-A.—In Section 3-A of the principal Act- (a) for sub-section (1), the following sub-section shall be substituted, namely: “(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), a certificate of registration issued under section 3 shall remain in force for a period of five years from the date of issue : Provided that a certificate issued before the commencement of the Societies Registration (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1984 (hereinafter in this section referred to as the said Act), shall remain in force for a period of five years from the date of such commencement on payment of the difference of the fees specified under sub-section (3) and the fees already paid.” (b) in sub-section (2), for the words, “two years”, the words “five years” shall be substituted; (c) in sub-section (3), in clause (a), for the words “ten rupees”, the words, “rupees twenty five” shall be substituted; (d) for sub-section (4), the following sub-section shall be substituted, namely: “(4) Every application for renewal of the certificate shall be accompanied by a list of members of the managing body elected after the registration of the society or after the renewal of certificate of registration and also the certificate sought to be renewed unless dispensed with by the Registrar on the ground of its loss or destruction or other sufficient cause.” It transpires from the records that even after the amendment was made in Section 3 of the Act and Section 3-A was inserted in the principal Act by U.P. Act No. 52 of 1975, the registration of the Society was not renewed. 8. However, in 1984 fresh registration of a Society by the same name ‘Shakti Shiksha Samiti, Bendo, Karchhana, Allahabad’ was done at the instance of one Krishna Prasad Upadhyay claiming himself to be its Manager. 8. However, in 1984 fresh registration of a Society by the same name ‘Shakti Shiksha Samiti, Bendo, Karchhana, Allahabad’ was done at the instance of one Krishna Prasad Upadhyay claiming himself to be its Manager. Vidya Bhushan Shukla, however, filed objections claiming himself to be the Manager of the Society and this dispute between Krishna Prasad Pandey and Vidya Bhushan Shukla was referred to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act by the Assistant Registrar. The Prescribed Authority, by the order dated 20th March, 1985, decided that Krishna Prasad Pandey was the Manager of the Committee of Management of the Society. This order was assailed by Vidya Bhushan Shukla in Writ Petition No. 4384 of 1985 which was dismissed on 20th August, 1985 on the ground of alternative remedy. Vidya Bhushan Shukla then filed Original Suit No. 152 of 1986 which was dismissed in 2007. In 2001, the registration of the Society registered in 1984 was renewed for a period of five years by the Assistant Registrar. 9. However, the registration of the Society registered in 1968 was also renewed by the Assistant Registrar on the application filed by Vidya Bhushan Shukla on 15th October, 2005 with effect from 10th October, 1975 and on 14th February, 2006, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari passed an order recognising the Committee of Management of the Institution with Vidya Bhushan Shukla as the Manager. 10. It is this order dated 14th February, 2006 passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari that has been assailed in Writ Petition No. 11438 of 2006 filed by the Committee of Management of the Institution with Shesh Narain Upadhyay as the Manager and on 23rd February, 2006, the Court passed the following interim order : “Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri R.S. Yadav has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No. 4. He may file a counter affidavit within three weeks. Standing counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate who appears for the petitioners has submitted that there was a dispute, as such the matter was referred to the Prescribed Authority as provided under the Act and by order dated 20.3.85, the Society of the petitioners was held to be valid and on that basis the renewal has been made which has been annexed with the writ petition. It has further been submitted that aggrieved by the oder passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 20.3.85 a writ petition was filed by the respondent and the same was dismissed on 20.8.85. Subsequently, suit No. 152 of 1986 has been filed by respondent No. 4 and that is still pending and there is no interim order. Now it appears that respondent No. 4 made an application for renewal of his Society and by order dated 15.10.2005 the Society of the respondent No. 4 has been renewed for a period of five years from 10.10.2005 and on the basis of the aforesaid renewal the Basic Shiksha Adhikari vide its order dated 14.2.2006 has passed an order that as the Society run and established by respondent No. 4 was registered in 1968, as such the Society of respondent No. 4 is the actual Society which runs the institution and the petitioners have got no right and on that basis he has recognized respondent No. 4 as Manager of the institution. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the order of the Prescribed Authority is still valid and it has not been set aside. As such the Basic Shiksha Adhikari without taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case has recognized the respondent No. 4 as Manager of the institution. In such circumstance the petitioners are entitled for the interim relief. Till further orders of this Court, operation of the order dated 14.2.2006, Annexure-11 to the writ petition shall remain stayed. The interim order passed by this Court will be subject to the decision of the suit filed by respondent No. 4.” 11. Shesh Narain Upadhyay also filed objections before the Assistant Registrar against the order dated 15th October, 2005 by which the registration of the Society registered in 1968 was renewed by the Assistant Registrar. These objections were accepted by the Assistant Registrar and by the order dated 20th November, 2006, the order dated 15th October, 2005 earlier passed by him was set aside. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, Rajni Kant Shukla claiming himself to be the Secretary of the Committee of Management of the Society filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad which was dismissed by the order dated 5th November, 2007. 12. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, Rajni Kant Shukla claiming himself to be the Secretary of the Committee of Management of the Society filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad which was dismissed by the order dated 5th November, 2007. 12. The Committee of Management of the Society and Rajni Kant Shukla, therefore, filed Writ Petition No. 63954 of 2007 for assailing the order dated 20th November, 2006 passed by the Assistant Registrar as also the order dated 5th November, 2007 passed by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad. 13. It needs to be mentioned that the Society with Rajni Kant Shukla as the Secretary had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 47321 of 2007 when the Assistant Registrar had passed the order 20th November, 2006 and the appeal before the Commissioner was pending. This petition was filed since three applications had also been filed by the petitioners to the Principal Secretary (Finance) Government of U.P., Lucknow for cancellation of the registration certificate issued by the Assistant Registrar in favour of Shesh Narain Upadhyay in view of the bar contained in Section 3(2)(a) of the Act that the Registrar shall refuse to register a Society if he is satisfied that the name of the Society is identical with that of any other Society previously registered under the Act. 14. Writ Petition No. 55703 of 2006 was also filed by the Society and two others, namely, Vidya Bhushan Shukla and Rajni Kant Shukla with the allegation that even though amendment was made in the Act by U.P. Act No. 52 of 1975, yet due to inadvertence, the application for renewal of the registration of the Society could not be filed in time under Section 3-A of the Act and taking advantage of this fact another Society with the same name got its registration done in 1984 with Krishna Prasad Pandey as the Manager and since a dispute had arisen as to whether Krishna Prasad Pandey was the Manager or Vidya Bhushan Shukla was the Manager, it was referred to the Prescribed Authority, which by the order dated 20th March, 1985 decided it in favour of Krishna Prasad Pandey. In the meantime, an application was also filed by the petitioners for renewal of the registration of the Society registered in 1968 and on 15th October, 2005, the Assistant Registrar issued seven certificates renewing the registration of the 1968 Society with effect from 10th October, 1975 for five years each. The Assistant Registrar, however, by the order dated 14th September, 2006 issued renewal certificate on the application submitted by the Society registered in 1984 with Shesh Narain Upadhyay as the Secretary. It is this order dated 14th September, 2006 that has been assailed in this petition and a direction has been sought that the Assistant Registrar should cancel the registration of the Society under Section 12-D of the Act. 15. Sri Udayan Nandan, learned counsel for Shesh Narain Upadhyay and representing the Society registered on 30th April, 1984 has made the following submissions : 1. The bar contained in Section 3(2)(a) of the Act will not apply to the same Society registered in 1968 which applied for a fresh registration on account of non-renewal of the earlier registration certificate. Even assuming that Section 3(2)(a) of the Act will apply, then too the bar regarding subsequent registration with the same name will only apply when the registration of the previously registered Society was renewed but as the Society registered in 1968 had not applied for renewal till the year 2005, the bar under Section 3(2)(a) of the Act will not apply to the Society registered in 1984. 2. The 1984 amendment in the Act which came in force on 30th April, 1984 does not help the Society registered in 1968 which cannot claim automatic renewal on the date the said amendment came into force since the proviso to the said amendment clearly states that the difference in fees has to be paid and there is nothing on record to suggest that the 1968 Society paid the difference in fees when the 1984 amendment came into force and nor any application was filed for renewal of the registration certificate. 3. The Registrar could not have renewed the registration certificate of the 1968 Society in the year 2005 without recording reason as to why the application was not filed within one year from the date the certificate became inoperative. 3. The Registrar could not have renewed the registration certificate of the 1968 Society in the year 2005 without recording reason as to why the application was not filed within one year from the date the certificate became inoperative. Moreover the registration certificate granted to the Society registered on 30th April, 1984 was renewed in the year 2001 for a period of five years and, therefore, no renewal could have been granted in favour of the Society registered in 1968 when the certificate granted in 2001 was still subsisting. 4 The Society in whose favour the fresh registration certificate was granted on 30th April, 1984 is the same Society which was earlier registered in the year 1968. The said Society became un-registered since Vidya Bhushan Shukla, the then Manager was not interested in the affairs of the Society. Vidya Bhushan Shukla subsequently moved an objection after the registration of the 1984 Society to the effect that he is the Manager of the Society and that no elections were held on 12th February, 1984. 5. It is the case of the other side that the Society registered in the year 1968 was never dissolved under the provisions of Section 13 of the Act as no resolution was passed by the 3/5th members of the 1968 Society for dissolving the Society and the property of the Society was also not disposed of and nor given to the Society registered in 1984 upon dissolution of the Society as contemplated under Section 14 of the Act. These provisions will not apply to the facts and circumstance of the present case as it was never the contention of the Society registered in 1984 that the Society which was registered in the year 1968 was dissolved or that upon dissolution the property was given to the 1984 Society. The contention, on the other hand, is that the certificate was granted on 30th April, 1984 in favour of the same Society which was registered in the year 1968 since the registration of the Society was not renewed on account of neglect of the affairs of the Society by Vidya Bhushan Shukla and it is only after fresh elections of the Committee of Management of the governing body of the same Society were held on 12th February, 1984 that the application for fresh registration of the Society was made and it was granted on 30th April, 1984. 6. 6. The application for a fresh registration was moved after a new Committee of Management was elected on 12th February, 1984 because of two reasons. Firstly, the order dated 19th March, 1979 passed by the District Basic Education Officer mentions that after the 1975 amendment, every Society will be registered for a period of two years and thereafter will have to apply for renewal within one year and if no application is made within one year then the said Society will become unregistered and will be taken as a Society with no legal entity and the said one year expired on 9th October, 1977. It is for this reason that the Society had to apply for a fresh registration. Secondly, the order dated 16th February, 1999 provides that a Society which gets de-registered shall have to apply for renewal and not for fresh registration is not retrospective and, therefore, will not be applicable to the fresh registration granted on 30th April, 1984. 7. The Institution is being run by the elected Manager of the Society and as of now the Manager of the Institution is Shesh Narain Upadhyay whose signatures have been attested which is clear from the pass book of the Institution. 8. The list annexed to the supplementary counter affidavit to Writ Petition No. 41633 of 2008 containing the members of 1984 Society shows that Vidya Bhushan Shukla is a member of the 1984 Society though he was expelled from the membership of the Society on 23rd April, 2006. 16. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Vidya Bhushan Shukla and who represents the Society registered in the year 1968 has made the following submissions : 1. There exists no dispute that the Society under the name of Shakti Shiksha Samiti stood registered with registration No. 659 of 1968-69 and it is this Society which established the recognized and aided Junior High School Shri Shakti Vidyapeeth Bendo, Karchhana District Allahabad. The core dispute is as to whether this Junior High School is in law entitled to be managed and administered by the Society registered in the year 1968 with registration No. 650 of 1968-69 or is to be managed by the subsequent Society under the same name with registration No. 261 of 1984-85. The core dispute is as to whether this Junior High School is in law entitled to be managed and administered by the Society registered in the year 1968 with registration No. 650 of 1968-69 or is to be managed by the subsequent Society under the same name with registration No. 261 of 1984-85. During the course of the entire litigation this core question was not examined and emphasis was restricted to the controversy relating to non renewal/cancellation of renewal of registration certificate of Society bearing registration No. 650 of 1968 and the registration of subsequent Society with registration No. 261/1984-85 and cancellation of such renewal on account of registration in a name identical to the name of the 1968 Society. 2. Irrespective of the fact as to whether the 1968 Society has a valid renewal of the registration in its favour or not there is no dispute that it is the 1968 Society which established the Junior High School. It is, therefore, this Society which is entitled to run and administer the Junior High School whether as a Society having a valid renewal of its registration certificate or as an unregistered Society. Continuance of a valid registration certificate in the form of its periodical renewal is totally unrelated to the entitlement of the Society to manage and administer the Junior High School established by it. 3. The registration of the Society in the year 1984 with the registration No. 261/2984-85 is clearly hit by the prohibition contained under Section 3(2)(a) of the Act as amended in the State of U.P. Without entering into the controversy as to whether such prohibition is applicable in the case of a Society registered under a particular name at an earlier point of time or whether such prohibition is limited to a Society having a renewed registration in its favour alone, the 1968 Society had an existing and renewed registration in its favour on 30th April, 1984, the date on which the 1984 Society was registered. This claim is based on the fact that renewal of the registration of the Society for a period of five years, i.e. till 1989 existed by statutory fiction on account of substitution of Section 3-A(1) as inserted by U.P. Act No. 52 of 1975 and substituted by U.P. Act No. 11 of 1984 which received the assent of the Governor on 29th April, 1984 and was published in U.P. Gazette Extra Ordinary dated 30th April, 1984. The Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Viday Sabha, Jaunpur v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies Etc. and others, 1987 (13) ALR 459, supports this contention. Right from the time of application was submitted in the year 1984 for registration of a new Society there have been consistent objections at the level of the Assistant Registrar but despite such objection the Society was registered on 30th April, 1984 and the objections given up. 4. It is not in dispute that at no point of time the Society registered in 1968 was dissolved or the said Society was merged with any other Society and nor does there exist any order of the Court permitting transfer of property of the 1968 Society to any other Society in terms of Section 5-A of the Act. A combined reading of Sections 5, 5-A, 13, 14 and 15 of the Act demonstrates that there is no way in which an educational Institution established in the year 1968 becomes an educational Institution owned, controlled and administered by the 1984 Society. 5. Even if the 1968 Society became an unregistered Society it cannot be said that such Society ceases to exist or has become defunct. The same also does not affect the control and administration of the Junior High School established by the 1968 Society being continued to be managed by it. In support of this contention reliance is placed on the judgments in I. Nelson and another v. Kallyam Pastorate and others, 2006 (11) SCC 624 ; C/M, Hari Shyam Khati Gramodyog Sewa Sabha, Allahabad v. State of U.P. and others, 2006 (3) ESC 1570 ; C/M, Antahpuri Vidyalaya Shiksha Samiti v. Commissioner, Kanpur, 2008 (1) ADJ 706 and Hindu Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Society v. Commissioner, Agra Division, 2008 (1) AWC 355. 6. 6. Reliance placed on the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 20th March, 1985, the judgment of the Court dated 20th August, 1985 passed in Writ Petition No. 4384 of 1985 and the dismissal of the civil suit filed after the judgment dated 20th August, 1985 is misplaced. At best this would only lead to the conclusion that the finding of the Prescribed Authority that 1984 Society managed by the other side has attained finality. 7. A perusal of the order of the Assistant Registrar dated 20th November, 2006 cancelling the renewal certificates of the registration of 1968 Society as also the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Allahabad dated 5th November, 2007 dismissing the appeal, which are the subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No. 63954 of 2007 will demonstrate that the said orders have not decided the controversy but merely refer to the earlier order of the Prescribed Authority dated 20th March, 1985 and the judgment of the Court dated 20th August, 1985 as the basis for cancelling the renewal of the registration certificate of the 1968 Society. 8. The Memorandum of Association and Bye Laws of the Society registered in 1984 will demonstrate that it was presented for registration as a Society under the Act by 7 persons. The said memorandum of Association also specifies the constitution of first Committee of Management. The Memorandum of Association of the 1968 Society will demonstrate that none of the six persons who were the signatory to the Memorandum of Association of 1968 Society are either signatories to the Memorandum of Association of 1984 Society or even find place amongst the members and office bearers of the Committee of Management as specified in the Memorandum of Association of 1984 Society. The list of members of the 1968 Society and that of the year 1984-85 demonstrates that there is complete diversion from the persons who are signatories to the Memorandum of Association of the year 1984 or who stand specified as member/office bearers of 1984 Committee of Management. A perusal of two list would totally falsify any claim of the 1968 Society being the basis of the registration of the 1984 Society. 17. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 18. A perusal of two list would totally falsify any claim of the 1968 Society being the basis of the registration of the 1984 Society. 17. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 18. It is not in dispute that a Society by the name of Shakti Shiksha Samiti was registered under the provisions of the Act on 13th September, 1968. At that point of time, there was no period of registration provided under the Act and it is only in 1975 that under Section 3-A(1) of the Act inserted by U.P. Act No. 52 of 1975 (which came into force on 10th October, 1975) time period of the certificate of registration was provided as two years from the date of issue. It was further provided that a certificate issued before the commencement of the said amendment shall remain in force for a period of two years from the date of commencement. Sub-section (2) of Section 3-A of the Act provides that a Society registered whether before or after the commencement of the Amending Act, shall on an application made to the Registrar within one month of the expiration of the period referred to in Sub-section (1) of the Act on payment of the fee specified in sub-section (3), be entitled to have its certificate of registration renewed for two years at a time. Sub-section (5) of Section 3-A of the Act provides that a Society which fails to get its certificate of registration renewed within one year from the expiration of the period for which the certificate was operative shall become an unregistered Society but the Registrar may, for sufficient cause, allow an application for renewal more than one year after the expiration of the period for which the certificate was operative on payment of a fee of Rs.50/-. 19. Section 3-A of the Act was subsequently amended by U.P. Act No. 11 of 1984 which was published in the U.P. Gazette on 30th April, 1984 and it was provided that the certificate of registration issued under Section 3 shall remain in force for a period of five years instead of two years from the date of issue. 19. Section 3-A of the Act was subsequently amended by U.P. Act No. 11 of 1984 which was published in the U.P. Gazette on 30th April, 1984 and it was provided that the certificate of registration issued under Section 3 shall remain in force for a period of five years instead of two years from the date of issue. It was also provided that a certificate issued prior to the commencement of the Amending Act of 1984 shall remain in force for a period of five years from the date of commencement on the payment of the difference of the fees which was mentioned as Rs.25/-. 20. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the Society registered in 1968 ever made any application for renewal of the registration of the Society when the 1975 amendment came into force or when the 1984 amendment came into force on 30th April, 1984. There is also nothing on the record to indicate that the Society registered in 1968 deposited the difference of fees as was required to be done under U.P. Act No. 11 of 1984 which came into force on 30th April, 1984. 21. A Division Bench of this Court in Vidhya Sabha, Jaunpur (supra) examined the amendments made in Act in 1975 and 1984 and observed as follows : “From the above it will be observed that the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 3A remains the same as before except with a provisions with respect to the payment of difference of fees has been inserted later with which we are not directly concerned herein. The submission raised on behalf of the respondents, to which learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel also subscribes, is that the application of this proviso should be confined to cases where the renewal of the society had been got done subsequent to the commencement of the U.P. Amendment Act 52 of 1975. The argument advanced is that in relation to a society, which was to be deemed as unregistered because of such renewal not having been applied for as provided under sub-section (5) of Section 3-A it is not to be understood as provided for renewal to be got done by making application within five years from the date of the commencement of the U.P. Amendment Act, 1984. The argument is not without force. The argument is not without force. But then in considering the same, regard is to be had to the context as also the express language used and the object behind the amendment introduced by the 1984 Act. The proviso as substituted by the 1984 Act in the first place makes no distinction in respect of societies to which the same may be made applicable. It does not say that proviso will not apply to a society which was not got renewed within the period intervening between the enforcement of Amendment Act, 1975 and the commencement of the U.P. Amendment Act, 1984. On the contrary the language used is in reference in a certificate issued “before the commencement of the Societies Registration (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1984” meaning thereby that it covers within its span all such societies in relation to which the certificate of registration may have been issued at any time prior to April 30, 1984, when the 1984 Amendment Act commenced. We put it specifically to the learned counsel for the respondents as to which are the cases to which the proviso would apply in case the interpretation given were that it would not attract a society wherein renewal was not applied for within that intervening period and to this we are unable to have a satisfactory answer. There is some incongruity, no doubt, as as result of existence of sub-section (5) and the Amendment Act made by the 1984 Act being not expressly given retrospective effect. But this can be resolved satisfactorily, in our opinion, upon a true interpretation in the light of the entire context. From Section 3-A, as introduced initially with effect from 10-10-1975, it would appear that the extension given to the said certificates of registration was for a period of two years only and in view of sub-section (5) renewal could be applied for within another one year of the expiry of this period of two years. From Section 3-A, as introduced initially with effect from 10-10-1975, it would appear that the extension given to the said certificates of registration was for a period of two years only and in view of sub-section (5) renewal could be applied for within another one year of the expiry of this period of two years. Legislature seems later to have considered this period of two years as too short and, therefore, the legislature by substituting the proviso through 1984 Amendment Act substituted five years in place of two years meaning thereby that the position obtaining in all other respect remains the same except that instead of two years the life of the society in relation to which there was registration at any time prior to April 30, 1984, is extended to five years instead of two years. It remains open consequently in such a case to seek renewal within one year from the date of the expiry of the extended term of five years. The settled canon of interpretation is that it should be such as subserves the object of the Legislature and fulfils the purpose rather than negatives the same unless the language used be such as may not admit of any other construction. But in this case that may not be said to be so. The intention of the Legislature as appearing from the language used in re-enacting the relevant portion of Section 3-A by the U.P. (Amendment Act, 1984 would appear to be to impart a new Lease of life to societies, which has been registered at any time prior to the commencement of this Act, but in which case the renewal could not be had earlier for some reason or the other. The statute has to be read as a whole; the construction placed should be such as does not render otiose or renders any part thereof redundant. In case the interpretation suggested for the respondents were to be adopted the proviso to Section 3-A(1) would be rendered meaningless and that suggestion may not be accepted under a compelling situation which in this case does not exist. The other contention raised for the respondents before us has been with respect to the petitioners not having deposited the required differential in the fee etc. The other contention raised for the respondents before us has been with respect to the petitioners not having deposited the required differential in the fee etc. This, in our opinion is subsidiary the reason being that in case time is still surviving for the renewal to be applied for and obtained, the differential in regard to the fee may be made good even at this stage.” (emphasis supplied) 22. A perusal of the said judgment shows that the Division Bench was of the opinion that the amendment made to the proviso contained in sub-section (1) of Section 3-A of the Act will apply to all the Societies including those Societies of which registration was not renewed during the period intervening between the enforcement of the 1975 Act and the commencement of 1984 Act but the issue regarding deposit of the requisite difference in the fees was left open and was not decided. 23. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 3-A of the Act, as substituted by U.P. Act No. 11 of 1984 with effect from 30th April, 1984, provides that a certificate issued before commencement of the 1984 Amendment Act shall remain in force for a period of five years from the date of such commencement on payment of difference of fees as specified under sub-section (3). 24. Thus, even if the 1984 amendment was made applicable to the Societies which had not made any application for renewal of the Registration of the Society after the Amending Act of 1975 came into force, then too it was imperative for a Society to deposit the difference of fees for the registration to continue for a period of five years with effect from 30th April, 1984. In the present case, there is nothing on the record to indicate that the difference of fees was deposited by the Society for the registration to continue for five years with effect from 30th April, 1984 and nor is there anything on the record to indicate that it made any application for renewal of the registration of the Society upon expiry of five years period on 29th April, 1989. 25. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention of Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel that the registration of the Society automatically stood renewed for a period of five years with effect from 30th April, 1984. 26. 25. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention of Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel that the registration of the Society automatically stood renewed for a period of five years with effect from 30th April, 1984. 26. It is for this reason that it has been contended by Sri Udayan Nandan that the bar of Section 3(2)(a) of the Act which provides that the Registrar shall refuse to register a Society if the name of the Society is identical with that of any other Society previously registered Society under the Act, will not apply since the registration of the previously registered Society was not renewed. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Sri Maharana Pratap Shiksha Parishad, Firozabad, through its President Sri Janki Singh Ahadia v. Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra and another, 1994 (1) AWC 376, wherein it was observed : “The facts of this case reveal that while it is true that the petitioners society was not registered in 1989 when the respondent No. 2 got registration, yet thereafter the petitioner got renewal. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that in view of section 3(2) of the Societies Registration Act (As amended in U.P.) no society can be registered if its name is identical with that of any other society previously registered under this Act. He has submitted that since the petitioners society was previously registered under this Act, hence the respondent No. 2 society should not have been granted registration. I find it difficult to accept the interpretation of section 3(2) of the Societies Registration Act which is sought to be put up by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In my opinion, section 3(2) has to be read alongwith section 3-A(5) of the said Act which shows that a society which fails to get a certificate of registration renewed within one year from the expiry of the period for which the certificate was operative shall become an unregistered society. If the interpretation of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted it will mean that if a society is registered under a certain name, then even if no renewal is ever sought thereafter no society can be registered under the same name. This could obviously not be the intention of the Act. If the interpretation of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted it will mean that if a society is registered under a certain name, then even if no renewal is ever sought thereafter no society can be registered under the same name. This could obviously not be the intention of the Act. The petitioner was obviously not vigilent and careful and did not get its renewal granted in time. At the time when the respondent No. 2 was registered the petitioner was unregistered. An unregistered society is not a legal entity at all. Hence, in my opinion, Section 3(2) of the Act must be interpreted to mean that the society which seeks registration should not have a name identical with that of another society which was previously registered and whose registration is subsisting. Moreover, in section 3(2)(a) of the Act the word used is ‘identical’ and not ‘similar’. In the present case though the names of the petitioner and respondent No. 2 closely resemble each other yet they are not identical.” 27. It may, however, not be necessary to examine this issue in this petition as it is also the contention of Sri Udayan Nandan that it was the same Society which was registered in the year 1968 that got itself registered again in 1984. It is his submission that the Society registered in the year 1968 did not apply for renewal since the District Basic Education Officer had passed an order on 19th March, 1979 that after the 1975 Amendments, every Society will be registered for a period of two years after which it will have to apply within one year but if no application is made within one year then the Society will become unregistered. According to him this period of two years expired on 9th October, 1977 and, therefore, the Society was left with no option but to apply for fresh registration. 28. According to him this period of two years expired on 9th October, 1977 and, therefore, the Society was left with no option but to apply for fresh registration. 28. This fact has been seriously disputed by Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel representing the Society registered in 1968 and it is contended that the Memorandum of Association Bye-Laws of the Society registered in 1984 and the constitution of the first Committee of Management when compared with the Memorandum of Association of the 1968 Society and the office bearers of the Committee of Management shows that the 1968 Society had not submitted application for fresh registration and that the 1984 Society was an entirely different Society. 29. The Assistant Registrar by the order dated 20th November, 2006 cancelled the certificate issued on 10th November, 2005 for renewal of the registration of the 1968 Society on the ground that the registration of the Society registered on 30th April, 1984 was renewed from time to time and was ultimately renewed upto 30th April, 2006 but in the meantime application was filed by Sri Vidya Bhushan Shukla for renewal of the registration of the 1968 Society by concealment of material facts and such renewal certificate was issued on 15th October, 2005 periodically renewing the registration from 1975. Thus, exercising powers under Section 12-D(1)(c) of the Act, the Assistant Registrar cancelled the renewal certificate issued on 15th October, 2005 in favour of the Society registered in 1968. This order of the Assistant Registrar has been assailed in Writ Petition No. 63954 of 2007. However, by the order dated 1st August, 2008, the Assistant Registrar also cancelled the registration certificate of the Society issued on 30th April, 1984 and the subsequent renewal certificates under Section 12-D(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that even if the 1968 Society failed to get the registration renewed, it would become an unregistered Society and does not cease to exist and, therefore, the registration of a new society with the same name could not have been done in view of the provisions of Section 3(2)(c) of the Act. This order dated 1st August, 2008 has been assailed in Writ Petition No. 41633 of 2008 in which an interim order was passed on 19th August, 2008 staying the operation of the said order till the next date of listing. 30. This order dated 1st August, 2008 has been assailed in Writ Petition No. 41633 of 2008 in which an interim order was passed on 19th August, 2008 staying the operation of the said order till the next date of listing. 30. The issue as to whether it was the same Society registered in 1968 which had applied for fresh registration in 1984 or whether it was a different Society has not been examined by the Assistant Registrar in either of the two orders. Though various submissions have been advanced by the learned counsel for the parties regarding this issue but the matter needs to be examined by the Assistant Registrar in the first instance. While doing so the Assistant Registrar can also examine the contention of Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel representing the Society registered in 1968 that even if a Society is unregistered, it does not cease to exist and can still run and administer the Junior High School and what is actually required to be seen is whether the Junior High School is, in law, entitled to be managed and administered by the Society registered in the year 1968 or by the subsequent Society registered in 1984. The order passed by the Prescribed Authority on 20th March, 1985 is merely with regard to the office bearers of the Society and the said order need not be looked into while deciding about the registration of the 1968 or 1984 Society or its renewal. 31. The respective parties may, therefore, place their claims before the Assistant Registrar who shall, after giving adequate opportunity to the parties, decide this issue. 32. Writ Petition No. 11438 of 2006 has been filed for quashing the order dated 14th February, 2006 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Allahabad by which Vidya Bhushan Shukla has been recognised as the Manager of the Committee of Management of the Institution. On 23rd February, 2006, the Court while entertaining the writ petition, stayed the operation of the order. It is, therefore, ordered that the position as on date shall continue till the Assistant Registrar decides the dispute and, thereafter, the District Basic Education Officer, Allahabad on being apprised of the decision taken by the Assistant Registrar by either of the parties, shall take a fresh decision within a period of one month. 33. It is, therefore, ordered that the position as on date shall continue till the Assistant Registrar decides the dispute and, thereafter, the District Basic Education Officer, Allahabad on being apprised of the decision taken by the Assistant Registrar by either of the parties, shall take a fresh decision within a period of one month. 33. Writ Petition No. 55703 of 2006 has been filed for quashing the order dated 14th September, 2006 passed by the Assistant Registrar for renewal of the registration of the Society on the basis of the papers submitted by Shesh Narain Upadhyay. As noticed hereinabove, the Assistant Registrar by the order dated 1st August, 2008 has cancelled the registration certificate dated 30th April, 1984 and the subsequent renewal certificates of the Society. This petition has, therefore, been rendered infructuous. 34. Writ Petition No. 47321 of 2007 has been filed for cancellation of the registration of the Society on 30th April, 1984. The Assistant Registrar by the order dated 1st August, 2008 has cancelled the registration certificate dated 30th April, 1984 and the subsequent renewal certificates of the Society. This petition has also been rendered infructuous. 35. Thus, for all the reasons stated above, the writ petitions are decided in the following manner : Writ Petition No. 11438 of 2006 is disposed of subject to the observations made above. Writ Petition No. 55703 and Writ Petition No. 47321 of 2007 are dismissed as having become infructuous. Writ Petition No. 63954 of 2007 and Writ Petition No. 41633 of 2008 are allowed. The matter is remanded to the Assistant Registrar for passing a fresh order in accordance with law within a month after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. —————