JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Heard Sri G. K. Singh, learned senior counsel on behalf of petitioners, learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Amar Nath holding brief of Sri Kuldeep Johri on behalf of respondent 3. With their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of finally without inviting a formal counter affidavit. 2. The petitioner who claims itself to be the Committee of Management of Maharani Awantibai Vidyalaya, Pilibhit, a registered society under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, has preferred the instant writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the second respondent to approve the amendments proposed by it in the bye-laws of the society. 3. Sri G.K. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners pointed out that the Committee of Management and the General Body of the Society had resolved to amend the bye-laws and the resolutions in regard thereto had been forwarded to the second respondent for its approval. It is stated that on receipt of the documents submitted by the petitioners, the Assistant Registrar issued notice to the second petitioner on 24.2.2016 pointing out that the third respondent, who is the Sansthapak and Chief Patron had by his letter dated 4.2.2016, informed the authorities that no amendment in the bye-laws can be carried out without his consent and approval. Consequently, the explanation of the second petitioner in relation to the stand taken by the third respondent in the above referred letter has been called for. Sri G.K. Singh pointed out that in response thereto, the petitioners have already submitted their detailed explanation and thereafter several dates were fixed in the matter but no final decision has been taken so far. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent submitted that no election had taken place after 2009 and the petitioner committee was not empowered to make any amendment in the bye-laws. He further pointed out that the amendment also could not have been carried out without the consent and approval of the third respondent. However, he does not dispute that the dispute regarding grant of approval to the proposed amendment is still pending consideration before the second respondent. 5. He further pointed out that the amendment also could not have been carried out without the consent and approval of the third respondent. However, he does not dispute that the dispute regarding grant of approval to the proposed amendment is still pending consideration before the second respondent. 5. In such view of the matter, in the opinion of the Court, interest of justice would be served in directing the second respondent to decide the matter in accordance with law, expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the issues and same shall be examined by the second respondent after due notice and opportunity of hearing to the third respondent or any other party who is likely to be affected thereby. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.