Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. — Heard Sri R. C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dileep Kumar Srivastava for the respondent No, 2, and the learned standing counsel for the respondent No. 1. 2. This petition has been filed assailing the order passed by the respondent-Assistant Registrar, Firm, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur dated 10.9.2010. The petitioner Awdhesh Singh contends that he is a valid member of the society and further the declaration of membership by the impugned order is against the weight of evidence on record. 3. Sri Dwivedi contends that the finding in relation to the petitioner is erroneous and so far as the contesting respondents are concerned the infirmity pointed out in the membership list of the respondent No. 2 has not been considered in correct perspective. 4. The dispute in relation to the society and its Management had earlier come up before the Assistant Registrar who had passed an order on 11th March, 2005 holding that since there was no validly constituted Committee continuing and the earlier term had expired, therefore, the Assistant Registrar should take fresh steps for holding of elections of the office-bearers of the society. This order dated 11th March, 2005 was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 23746 of 2005 and the said petition was dismissed and the interim order restraining the holding of fresh elections was vacated with a direction that steps shall be initiated for holding elections in accordance with law within three months. 5. On passing of the said order by this Court on 20.8.2009 in writ petition No. 23746 of 2005, the matter reached the Assistant Registrar where the contending parties raised a dispute with regard to the validity of the electoral college of the society. It is in this context that objections were filed and then considered whereafter the impugned order has been passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner and holding that the only valid list on the basis whereof elections are to be held are the members who were undisputed prior to the year 2001. 6. Sri Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this conclusion drawn by the Assistant Registrar is without looking into the validity of the list as projected by the parties and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 6. Sri Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this conclusion drawn by the Assistant Registrar is without looking into the validity of the list as projected by the parties and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Sri Dwivedi further submits that some other valid members who existed even prior to the undisputed period have been eliminated. 7. It is settled law that a person coming to this Court in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will have to establish his own individual right before seeking any further relief. The petitioner- Awdhesh Singh, therefore, has first to establish his own status as a member or claim as alleged by him. 8. In this regard, it is worth quoting the following lines from the order of the Assistant Registrar : @ hindi @ 9. The aforesaid finding recorded by the Assistant Registrar is on the basis of the list which was submitted by the petitioner in the year 2006 and subsequently the list which was projected by him in the writ petition No. 23746 of 2005. The Assistant Registrar has clearly noted a contradiction in the two lists, inasmuch as, the previous list indicated 26 members whereas the list projected by the petitioner in his writ petition was of 59 members. Noticing this contradiction the Assistant Registrar has rejected the stand taken by the petitioner including his own membership of the society. 10. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner ought to have pleaded anything to the contrary, which has not been done in order to explain the aforesaid contradiction as recorded by the Assistant Registrar. In this view of the matter, the conclusion of the Assistant Registrar that the documents of the petitioner are fake cannot be doubted at least in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when no material to the contrary has been brought on record. In the circumstances, once the petitioner himself has not been able to establish his own case, there is no occasion to further examine any other infirmity as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. Sri Dwivedi submits that there is a clerical mistake in the mentioning ……………………………………..