ORDER : A.S. Bopanna, J. The petitioners are before this Court seeking that the amended bye-law as certified by the second respondent vide Document No. 429/08-09 as well as the amended Registration Certificate dated 15-2-2010 at Annexures-H and J to the petition be quashed. Subsequently on amending the petition, the petitioner has sought that the order dated 22-2-2011 at Annexure-F92 be set aside and the second respondent be directed to conduct the enquiry in accordance with law. 2. The second petitioner claims to be the Joint Secretary of the first petitioner. The grievance of the petitioners is that certain members of the first petitioner had fraudulently and clandestinely fabricated the resolution stated to have been passed by the members to amend the bye-law. In that light, the petitioners have a grievance with regard to the name of the petitioner-society being changed to the name indicated in describing the third respondent herein. It is in that view, the petitioners had filed a complaint under Section 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 ('the Act' for short) with the second respondent seeking consideration of their grievance. In that regard, the complaint made by the petitioners was registered in Case No. DR/SOR/PTN/26/2010-11. After holding the proceedings on the earlier dates, when the case was listed on 22-2-2011, the second respondent has briefly referred to the contention put forth in the complaint made by the petitioners that the change of name has been obtained by forged documents and in that view, the second respondent has closed the proceedings by indicating that the petitioners should avail their remedies in accordance with law before the appropriate forum. The petitioners claiming to be aggrieved by the same have sought for quashing of the order vide Annexure-F92. Since the second respondent has disposed of the proceedings in such manner, the petitioners in this petition have sought for quashing the amended bye-law which had been accepted in the office of the second respondent. 3. The third respondent who had been represented through a Counsel at an earlier point had filed their objection statement to the petition enclosing thereto the document to sustain their claim that the meeting of the members was held in accordance with law and the resolution passed for changing the name of the Association is therefore in accordance with the bye-laws. 4. 4. Though such objection statement is filed in this petition, the position of law is well-settled that the order passed by the authorities should itself indicate the reasons and no reasons to substitute the order could be made subsequently by way of affidavit. If that be the position, what is necessary to be taken into consideration at this point is the manner in which the second respondent has disposed of the proceedings on 22-2-2011. The provisions contained in Sections 9 and 10 of the Act would provide with regard to the manner in which the amendment is to be made to the bye-laws. The decision in the case of Hebbar Sree Vaishnava Sabha, Bangalore v. G.S. Yoganarasimha and Others, 2009 (4) Kar. L.J. 11 (D.B.) relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner would indicate that, this Court has taken into consideration this aspect of the matter. If that be the position, when the provision under the statute provides for a procedure to be followed for the amendment of bye-laws and in that light, when the change made to the name of the society is said to be brought to the notice of the Competent Authority seeking registration for such amendment of bye-law and thereby altering the name of the society, the Competent Authority is required to satisfy itself that such change has been made in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the requirement of the bye-law has been fulfilled and thereafter the name has been changed. 5. 5. If this aspect of the matter is kept in view, when the petitioner has raised a dispute with regard to the manner in which the name of the Association had been altered and when it was contended that the same was not in compliance with the requirement of the Act and the bye-laws of the Society and on the contrary when it was contended another group that the requirement of bye-law has been adhered to by producing certain documents and in that regard, when the petitioner had raised a dispute that such documents are either forged or fabricated, primarily the second respondent was required to take note of the rival contentions and prima facie conclusion at least ought to have been reached to decide as to whether the documents relied upon by the third respondent to secure the registration of the change in the name of the Society had been made in accordance with law. Instead the order dated 22-2-2011 would disclose that the second respondent has observed that in view of the contention put forth by the petitioners that the documents have been forged and fabricated, the proceedings are closed and the petitioners are directed to avail their remedies. Such conclusion by the second respondent is not justified and the same is not in accordance with law. 6. Therefore the order dated 22-2-2011 impugned at Annexure-F92 would not be sustainable and the same is accordingly quashed. The second respondent is directed to restore the case in No. DR/SOR/PTN/26/2010-11 on record, notify the petitioner and the third respondent herein and take note of the rival contentions and come to a decision on the contentions that have been raised. Since the matter requires consideration by the second respondent and in the said proceedings, the validity or otherwise of the amended bye-law changing the name of the association would also be considered, the second prayer made in this petition need not be considered at this stage. The second respondent shall now issue notice to the parties and reconsider the matter in the manner as indicated above. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.