JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Sri B.B. Paul, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.N. Saxena, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sanjay Srivastava and Udayan Nandan, the learned counsel for respondent No. 4, who is the contesting party. The petitioner No. 1 alleges itself to be the Executive Board of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Southern Asia, and petitioner No. 2 alleges himself to be the General Secretary of this Board. It transpires that the petitioner No. 2 moved an application for renewal of the certificate of the Society and also filed a list of the names of the office bearers. It also transpires that the petitioners also moved an application for amending its bye-laws. These applications were duly considered and allowed and the renewal of certificate alongwith the list of office bearers was granted to the petitioners. When the respondents came to know about it, they filed a detailed objection alleging that a fraud and misrepresentation had been played by the petitioners. The Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Agra after considering the matter allowed the objection of respondent No. 4, and cancelled the renewal of certificate of the registration of the society as well as the list of office bearers and the application for amendment of the bye-laws on the ground that the petitioners had obtained the said certificate, etc. by misrepresentation and fraud. 2. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said order filed an appeal under sub-clause (2) of Section 12D of the Societies Registration Act. The said appeal was rejected by the appellate authority on the ground that the appeal was not maintainable in as much as the appeal only lies against the cancellation of the registration of the Society. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said order have filed the present writ petition. For a proper appreciation of the factual position, it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions of Section 12D of the Act which is extracted hereunder. 12D. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said order have filed the present writ petition. For a proper appreciation of the factual position, it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions of Section 12D of the Act which is extracted hereunder. 12D. Registrar’s power to cancel registration in certain circumstances.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Registrar may, by order in writing, cancel the registration of any society on any of the following grounds : (a) that the registration of the society or of its name or change of name is contrary to the provisions of this Act or of any other law for the time being in force; (b) that its activities or proposed activities have been or are or will be subversive of the objects of the society or opposed to public policy; [(c) that the registration or the certificate of renewal has been obtained by misrepresentation or fraud:] Provided that no order of cancellation of registration of any society shall be passed until the society has been given a reasonable opportunity of altering its name or object or of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to it. [(2) An appeal against an order made under sub-section (1) may be preferred to the Commissioner of the Division in whose jurisdiction the Headquarter of the society lies, within one month from the date of communication of such order. (3) The decision of the Commissioner under sub-section (2), shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court.] From a perusal of the aforesaid provision it is apparently clear that the Registrar has been given various powers for cancelling the registration of the Society. Section 12D(1)(c) which was inserted by U.P. Act No. 11 of 1984 provides that an appeal would also lie against an order where the certificate of renewal has been obtained by misrepresentation or fraud. 3. In the opinion of the Court, the appeal of the petitioner was maintainable and that the appellate authority committed an error in rejecting the appeal on the ground that it was not maintainable. In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned appellate order is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. 3. In the opinion of the Court, the appeal of the petitioner was maintainable and that the appellate authority committed an error in rejecting the appeal on the ground that it was not maintainable. In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned appellate order is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to decide the appeal of the petitioners after hearing all the parties concerned within 6 months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.