Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.;— Heard Sri R.K.Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.K.Tiwari and Sri H.K.Misra for the respondent no.3. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the notice issued on 5.7.2012 and the simultaneous interim order passed by the Assistant Registrar staying the earlier order dated 19.5.2012 on the ground that the issuance of the notice and passing of the stay order are without jurisdiction and the Assistant Registrar had become functus officio after the passing of the order dated 19.5.2012. 3. Sri R.K. Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Assistant Registrar once having passed the order on 19.5.2012, he becomes coram non judice and he had no authority to issue any notice or pass any interim order in respect of the earlier order dated 19.5.2012. He further submits that even otherwise assuming for the sake of argument that an administrative authority can correct his own order if it is found that fraud or misrepresentation has been made then too even in view of ratio of the Division Bench judgment in the case of Meerut Collegtiate Association Meerut and others Vs. Sri Arvind Nath Seth and ors reported in 1981 UPLBEC 82 the Assistant Registrar as an administrative authority has no power to grant any interim order in proceedings of either under section 4 or otherwise of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. 4. Sri Misra learned counsel for the respondent no.3 on the other hand contends that the petitioner has obtained the order dated 19.5.2012 on the basis of a forged document and therefore submits that this inquiry can be conducted by the Assistant Registrar as the order dated 19.5.2012 is founded on fraud and mis-representation. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the law on this issue is well settled that if an order is founded on fraud or misrepresentation then the authority before proceeding to deal with the matter will have to ascertain as to whether any such fraud or misrepresetation has been practiced or not. This view is supported by two Division Bench judgments in the case of Hawaldar Singh Vs. U.P.Shiksha Nideshak reported in 1976 AWC 123 and Radhey Shyam Chaubey and others Vs. DIOS,Jaunpur reported in 1978 AWC 40 . 6. This view is supported by two Division Bench judgments in the case of Hawaldar Singh Vs. U.P.Shiksha Nideshak reported in 1976 AWC 123 and Radhey Shyam Chaubey and others Vs. DIOS,Jaunpur reported in 1978 AWC 40 . 6. So far as the passing of the interim order is concerned in the opinion of the Court and in view of the law laid down in Merut Collegiate Association's case (supra) the Assistant Registrar could not have passed an interim order. Thus on both counts the Assistant Registrar has failed to exercise his jurisdiction in accordance with law. 7. Sri Mishra at this stage contends that he does not propose to file a counter affidavit nor does the standing counsel propose to file any counter affidavit. 8. Accordingly this writ petition is allowed. The notice and order dated 5.7.2012 is quashed leaving it open to the Assistant Registrar to proceed only if there is any element of fraud or misrepresentation. _____________