JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Mr. G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Rohan Gupta, Mr. Shubham Agarwal, Mr. Akshay Mohiley, Advocates, for the appellants, Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Yatindra Shukla, Mr. Shivam Shukla, Advocates and Mr. Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate, for the respondents. 2. This special appeal is directed against the order dated 4.7.2018 passed in a writ petition bearing Writ-C No. 22561 of 2018, filed by the appellants, challenging the orders dated 23.4.2018 and 30.5.2018 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur Region, Kanpur. 3. By these orders, it appears that the decision/resolution passed by the society, inducting Nitin Gupta, as a member of the general body of the society and the acceptance of resignation of Anand Swaroop by the general body, have been turned down. Counsel appearing for the appellants confines his challenge to the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in respect of acceptance of resignation of Anand Swaroop. The learned Single Judge, in the concluding paragraphs, after considering the controversy involved in the writ petition, observed thus: “In view of the discussions made above, this Court reaches at an irresistible conclusion that when there was a serious dispute with regard to correctness of resolution dated 27.10.2017, it was proper for the Chairman meeting to defer deliberation on the said agenda and to place it in the next meeting with intimation to all the members who were present in the earlier meeting. Further in view of the fact that Sri Anand Swaroop wrote a letter dated 14.12.2017 before ratification of the minutes dated 27.10.2017 for acceptance of his resignation, it was incumbent upon the Chairman to invite him to participate in the meeting held on 31.12.2017 or thereafter, after the matter was deferred. In the event of Tie on the question of correctness of the resolution, it was not open for the Chairman to exercise his casting vote for the purpose of ratification of the minutes. Thus having regard to the fact and circumstances brought before the Court, it would be appropriate that a fresh deliberation be made on two items i.e. resignation letter dated 19.12.2016 of Sri Anand Swaroop and induction of Sri Nitin Gupta in the Board of Governors. Thus having regard to the fact and circumstances brought before the Court, it would be appropriate that a fresh deliberation be made on two items i.e. resignation letter dated 19.12.2016 of Sri Anand Swaroop and induction of Sri Nitin Gupta in the Board of Governors. In view thereof, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the orders passed by the Deputy Registrar, in order to avoid any further complication or confusion, it would be appropriate that all existing members of the Society as on the date of the meeting i.e. 27.10.2017 (8 in number) would only be allowed to participate in the Special meeting to be called for discussion on the two aforesaid agendas, disputed between the parties. It is informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the time period for convening a meeting of the General body under the bye-laws of the society is 21 days, it would, therefore, be appropriate that the meeting of the General Body, for the aforesaid purpose, be held within a period of four weeks from today. The date of the said meeting with the specific agenda items to be discussed therein shall be duly intimated to all existing members as on 27.10.2017. It is clarified that no newly inducted members would be allowed to participate in the said meeting.” 4. Anand Swaroop vide his letter dated 19.12.2016 resigned from the Board of Governors with immediate effect. His two line resignation letter reads thus: “I feel, that I have not been able to make any contribution towards improving the hospital facilities during my tenure on the Board hence feel frustrated and wish to resign from the Board of Governors with immediate effect.” 5. Thereafter the Chairman of the Board of Governors, vide his letter dated 20.12.2016, requested him to reconsider his decision of resignation. In reply to this letter, Anand Swaroop once again, vide his letter dated 22.12.2016, reiterated his decision to resign and insisted on it being accepted by the Board of Governors. To this letter, once again the Chairman, vide his letter dated 23.12.2016 informed him that his letter of resignation shall be kept in the next meeting of the Board of Governors for acceptance. Admittedly, the bye laws do not prescribe any procedure, as such, either for tendering resignation or for its acceptance. To this letter, once again the Chairman, vide his letter dated 23.12.2016 informed him that his letter of resignation shall be kept in the next meeting of the Board of Governors for acceptance. Admittedly, the bye laws do not prescribe any procedure, as such, either for tendering resignation or for its acceptance. We, however, need not enter into the controversy whether acceptance of the resignation was necessary in the facts of the present case. It is not in dispute that, after his resignation, two meetings of the Board of Governors were held and, admittedly Anand Swaroop, though he had received notices, did not attend those meetings. Thereafter, in the meeting of the Board of Governors dated 27.10.2017, the resolution accepting his resignation was passed. When those minutes were placed before the next meeting of the Board of Governors on 31.12.2017, a controversy was raised as to the acceptance of his resignation. Thereafter, the matter was carried before the Deputy Registrar who, vide his order dated 30.5.2018, held that the decision regarding Anand Swaroop’s resignation was bad in law. That order was carried in writ petition by the appellants. 6. In this backdrop, the learned Single Judge made the observations in the concluding paragraphs of the order as quoted above. 7. Mr. Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Anand Swaroop invited our attention to all the letters referred by us in the above paragraphs and submitted that the resignation of Anand Swaroop was not accepted and, hence, he is entitled to attend the meeting as per the order of this Court, since he was one of the members out of eight on 27.10.2017. 8. We are unable to accede to the submission made by Mr. Khare for more than one reason. On 27.10.2017, Anand Swaroop did not attend the meeting because he had resigned earlier and now, in view of the order passed by learned Single Judge, the meeting that will be conducted will consider his three letters namely the first letter dated 19.12.2016 by which he resigned, then the second letter dated 22.12.2016 whereby he reiterated his decision to resign and the third letter dated 14.12.2017 whereby he withdrew his resignation. In our opinion, he cannot be allowed to participate in the meeting that will be conducted by virtue of the order passed by this Court dated 4.7.2018, impugned in the present appeal, for taking an appropriate decision after fresh deliberations in respect of his resignation. We, therefore, modify the order of the learned Single Judge only to that extent. In other words, we modify the order by disallowing Anand Swaroop from attending the meeting that will be convened in pursuance of the impugned order for considering the issue of his resignation. Insofar as the remaining part of the order dated 4.7.2018 is concerned, the same shall remain unaltered. 9. Appeal is accordingly allowed in terms of this order.