Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.— Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel and Mr. A.M. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 5. 2. The order impugned dated 7.8.2012 has been passed by the Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, U.P. Lucknow in exercise of power under Section 25(2) of Societies Registration Act, 1860. 3. The main ground of challenge to the order is that once the power of the Registrar has been delegated to the Deputy Registrar of the society in pursuance of the Government Order dated 20.7.1981 the Registrar cannot exercise the power of Deputy Registrar or Assistant Registrar, as the case may be, to hear the case and decide the same by exercising the power himself. 4. Mr. A.M. Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no. 5 tried to submit that the matter was transferred to the Registrar of the Societies on the application moved by the petitioner. However, there is nothing on record to indicate that the case was transferred to the Registrar in pursuance of any order. Rather the order impugned indicates that the Registrar himself heard the matter in exercise of power conferred under Section 25 (2) of the Societies Registration Act. 5. This Court in the case of Fahim Ahmad and another Vs. The State of U.P. & others (2006 (24) LCD 1078), has categorically held that once the power of Registrar has been delegated to the Deputy Registrar in pursuance of the Government Order dated 20.7.1981, the Registrar on his own cannot exercise the said power and interfere with the working of the Deputy Registrar or Assistant Registrar. In this regard the Registrar does not got jurisdiction to rescind or modify the order passed by the Deputy Registrar or the Assistant Registrar. The relevant para 31 of the judgment in the case of Fahim Ahmad and another (Supra) on reproduction reads as under: "31. The State Government by the notifications dated 20th of July, 1981, 7th of January, 1982, 31st of July, 1985, 24th of January, 1987, 6th of July, 1991 followed by another notification dated 29th of October, 1991 has delegated the work of Registrar to the Deputy Registrar or Assistant Registrar of the respective regions or districts. The State Government by the notifications dated 20th of July, 1981, 7th of January, 1982, 31st of July, 1985, 24th of January, 1987, 6th of July, 1991 followed by another notification dated 29th of October, 1991 has delegated the work of Registrar to the Deputy Registrar or Assistant Registrar of the respective regions or districts. In view of the delegation of power by the State Government in pursuance to the power conferred by Section 21 of the Societies Registration Act, the Deputy Registrar or the Assistant Registrar of the regions or districts or as the case may be, have got power to discharge all the statutory duties provided under the Societies Registration Act. Once the State Government has delegated the power to the Deputy Registrar or the Assistant Registrar of the respective regions or the districts then the Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, U.P., Lucknow has got no jurisdiction to interfere with the discharge of statutory duties by the Deputy Registrar or the Assistant Registrar while proceeding with the controversy. The supervisory power vested in the Registrar does not seem to include to pass an order staying the election process or to summon the record and usurp the power of the Deputy Registrar or the Assistant Registrar. Of course, in case, it is brought into the notice of the Registrar relating to some malpractice, fraud or the corrupt practice by the Deputy Registrar, then in such situation, Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits may transfer the proceeding to some other Deputy Registrar or the Assistant Registrar having the jurisdiction to discharge duties under Section 21 of the Societies Registration Act. Corollary to that the Registrar does not have got jurisdiction to rescind or modify the order passed by the Deputy Registrar or the Assistant Registrar while discharging the statutory duties. The Registrar does not possess the appellate power under the Act to rescind the decision taken by the Deputy Registrar or the Assistant Registrar as the case may be. It is settled law that the power of appeal or review or revision are the statutory powers and in the absence of any specific provision under the Act or Statute, the authorities have got no jurisdiction to exercise such powers." 6. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the order impugned is not sustainable in the eye of law. 7. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the order impugned is not sustainable in the eye of law. 7. The writ petition as such is allowed. 8. The impugned order dated 7.8.2012 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) passed by opposite party no.2 is hereby quashed. 9. A direction is issued to the opposite party no. 3/Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Lucknow Region, Lucknow to consider and decide the matter in accordance with law giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned expeditiously,say, within a period of three months from the date a certified copy this order is produced before him. He shall also issue necessary consequential orders as may be required. 10. It will be open for the parties to raise the question regarding jurisdiction of Deputy Registrar to decide the issue in question before him. _____________