ORDER : ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Mr. Aproova Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2, Mr. Upendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3, Mr. Sharad Pathak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 7. 2. That by means of the present writ petition the petitioners have assailed the order dated 12/02/19 passed by Deputy Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits Lucknow Region, Lucknow, thereby cancelling all the renewal certificates, changing the name of the society as well as the amendment in the bylaws, and the list of the Management Committee for the years 2010-11, 2015-16 and 2016-17 which has purportedly been done in exercise of powers under the provisions of section 12-D(1)C of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and also declaring the Management Committee as time-barred with effect from 17.08.1991 and also for the declaring the list of the General Body. It has been stated in the said order that it has been passed in compliance of the orders of the High Court dated 14/11/2018 passed in writ petition No. 32909(MS) of 2018. 3. The facts in brief are that the Badri Prasad Ucchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya was registered under the Societies Registration Act on 14/05/69, and as per the bye-laws Sri. Badri Prasad Tiwari was the founder and would remain as the Manager during his lifetime. Sri. Badri Prasad Tiwari died in the year 1971 and thereafter Sri. Bhagwat Prasad Bajpai was made the Secretary and Manager of the society. The said society duly applied for renewal, and the renewal was granted regularly in the year 1990. 4. That the election of the Committee of Management of the Society were held on 25/04/1994 wherein one Sri. Kuldeep Kumar Dwivedi was elected as the Secretary in place of Sri. Badri Prasad Tiwari. Sri. Kuldeep Kumar Dwivedi applied for renewal of the Certificate of registration, and the same was renewed vide order dated 20/10/1995, simultaneously Sri. Bhagwat Prasad Bajpai also made an application for renewal of the Certificate of registration. Sri. Bhagwat Prasad Bajpai thereafter challenge the election of Sri. Kuldeep Kumar Dwivedi before the Deputy Registrar, who by means of the order dated 04/04/1996 made a reference to the Prescribed Authority in accordance with section 25 (1) to decide the validity of the rival claims. 5. Sri. Bhagwat Prasad Bajpai thereafter challenge the election of Sri. Kuldeep Kumar Dwivedi before the Deputy Registrar, who by means of the order dated 04/04/1996 made a reference to the Prescribed Authority in accordance with section 25 (1) to decide the validity of the rival claims. 5. The Prescribed Authority after hearing the rival claims, upheld the election of Sri. Kuldeep Kumar Dwivedi and rejected the claim of Sri. Bhagwat Prasad Bajpai by means of order dated 06/12/2001. The said order was not challenged further, and therefore attained finality, and Kuldeep Kumar Dwivedi continue to function as the Secretary, and also the registration of the society were renewed from 21/02/2002 till 10/10/2010. That fresh elections for the Committee of Management were held on 12/03/2015 where Sri. Bal Krishna Tiwari was elected as the Secretary, and subsequently the objects of the society were also amended and the name of the society were also changed and the word "Ucchatar" was added to the name of the Society, the bylaws of the society were also amended by the General Body in its meeting on 25/04/2015 which was duly filed before the Deputy Registrar and a fresh registration certificate was issued in the altered name of the Society. 6. That the registration of the society was renewed in 2015 and the list of the elected Office-Bearers of the Society for the year 2015-16 was filed before the Deputy Registrar and the same were taken on record. 7. That the dispute between the society of the petitioner became more intense and on 06/10/2015 Sri. Bhagwat Prasad Bajpai got a fresh society in the same name of the petitioner society registered in the office of Deputy Registrar, and on coming to know of the same the petitioner No. 3 and other members of petition number one approached the Deputy Registrar by means of representation dated 15/11/2016 who passed an order dated 13/02/2017 where the registration of the second society at the instance of Sri. Bhagwat Prasad Bajpai was cancelled. 8. That Sri. Bhagwat Prasad Bajpai made a representation dated 12/05/2017 to the Deputy Registrar challenging the amendments made to the bylaws, the elections of the Committee of Management of the Society. 9. That respondent No. 3 on 07/05/2017 lodged a First Information Report bearing Case Crime No. 310 of 2017 under section 406/420/467/468/471/506 against Sri. Kuldeep Kumar Dwivedi. 8. That Sri. Bhagwat Prasad Bajpai made a representation dated 12/05/2017 to the Deputy Registrar challenging the amendments made to the bylaws, the elections of the Committee of Management of the Society. 9. That respondent No. 3 on 07/05/2017 lodged a First Information Report bearing Case Crime No. 310 of 2017 under section 406/420/467/468/471/506 against Sri. Kuldeep Kumar Dwivedi. A writ petition was filed before this Hon'ble Court being Writ Petition No. 22401 (MB) of 2017 wherein the arrest of the accused was stayed till filing of the police report under section 173(2), Cr.P.C. 10. The Chief Judicial Magistrate during the course of investigation by means of order dated 20/09/2017, ordered that the signatures on the list of elected Office-Bearers for the year 1994-95 be examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow. On the basis of the aforesaid directions the Deputy Registrar forwarded the original documents to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow on 09/11/2017. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory was submitted on 03/05/2018 and was forwarded to Circle Officer, P.S. Safipur, Unnao. It has been submitted that the charge sheet has been filed in the Court of Competent jurisdiction, against which a Criminal Misc petition has been filed in this Court which is pending consideration. 11. That in the meanwhile Bhagwati Prasad Bajpai filed a writ petition No. 25772 (MS) of 2017 before this court which was disposed of by means of order dated 24/11/2017 with a direction to the deputy registrar to conclude the proceedings pending before him expeditiously. 12. That the Deputy Registrar by means of order dated 06/01/2018 rejected the representation of Sri. Bhagwati Prasad Bajpai. An application for review of the order dated 06/01/2018 was preferred by Bhagwati Prasad Bajpai on 18/05/2018 placing reliance on the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory dated 03/05/2018. 13. That on receiving notice from the Deputy Registrar on the application of Bhagwati Prasad Bajpai for review of the order dated 06/01/2018, the petitioner No. 2 filed his objections specifically stating that the Deputy Registrar had no jurisdiction or power to review, as the same has not been provided in the statute. 14. That Bhagwati Prasad Bajpai died during the pendency of the review proceedings on 07/09/2018. The review petition was also rejected by order dated 16/10/2018. 15. 14. That Bhagwati Prasad Bajpai died during the pendency of the review proceedings on 07/09/2018. The review petition was also rejected by order dated 16/10/2018. 15. That after recording this fact that the Deputy Registrar does not have any power to, review in its order dated 16/10/2018, the Deputy Registrar unabashedly embarked to revoke the order dated 16/10/2018 and 06/01/2018, and without giving any opportunity to any other party and cancelled the renewal certificates issued, since the year 1995, amendments made to the bye-laws and the name of the society, and the list of the General Body of the society for the year 2016-17 by his order dated 24/10/2018. 16. The order dated 24/10/2018 was challenged before this Court in writ petition No. 32909 (MS) of 2018, which was set aside by this Court in its judgment and order dated 14/11/2018 directing the respondent therein to move a fresh application within a period of 10 days, and granting liberty to the petitioner to file a response thereto, directing the Registrar to decide the matter finally after hearing all the concerned parties, the Deputy Registrar was directed to decide all questions including the question of maintainability of the review application. 17. That by means of the impugned order dated 12/02/2019 the Deputy Registrar has cancelled all the renewal certificates, changing the name of the society as well as the amendment in the bye-laws, and the list of the Management Committee for the years 2010-11, 2015-16, 2016-17 which has purportedly been done in exercise of powers under the provisions of Section 12 D (1)C of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and further he has also declared the Management Committee as time-barred with effect from 17/08/1991 and also declared the list of the General Body. 18. It has been contended by Sri. Apoorva Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner that the said order is illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as it has been passed in defiance/violation of the directions by this Hon'ble Court wherein its order dated 14/11/2018 in writ petition No. 32909 of 2018 (MS) the Deputy Registrar was specifically directed to decide the question of maintainability of the review application, which has not been done by him. The second ground of challenge of the said order is, that the entire order is based on the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory which was sought at the instance of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and only a piece of evidence which is yet to be proved/admitted before the Court of competent jurisdiction, and therefore the Deputy Registrar wholly placing reliance on the said report treating it to be an uncontroverted piece of evidence, is erroneous, unsustainable illegal and arbitrary and therefore deserves to be set aside. 19. He is further submitted that the respondents are trying to reopen issues which have been laid to rest for the last nearly 25 years, and there is no reason given by them as to why the list of the General Body for the year 1994-95 was not challenged any time prior to than in the present proceedings. The entire proceedings are therefore time-barred and the claim of the respondents is based only on the Report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, which according to him cannot unsettle the settled position, due to the lapse of sufficiently long time. 20. Sri. Upendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy of Appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Lucknow as per clause 12(D)(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and hence the extraordinary jurisdiction would not be available to the petitioner in the present circumstances. 21. It has been vehemently urged by Sri. Mishra that on the application of the father of the respondent No. 3 dated 12/05/2017 serious allegations of forgery, manipulation and fudging of records were levelled against the petitioner when the renewal of registration of the society was sought, and the Deputy Registrar by means of the impugned order dated 24/26.11.2018 has finally decided the issue in compliance of the orders of this Hon'ble Court by its judgment dated 14/11/2018 and cancelled the renewal of the society obtained by the petitioner on the basis of fraud with effect from 29/04/1995. 22. It has further been submitted by Shri. Mishra that the renewal certificates have been cancelled after recording a specific finding with regard to the fraud, and therefore it is settled proposition that the judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the Court or Tribunal or Authority is a nullity and non est in the eye of law. 22. It has further been submitted by Shri. Mishra that the renewal certificates have been cancelled after recording a specific finding with regard to the fraud, and therefore it is settled proposition that the judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the Court or Tribunal or Authority is a nullity and non est in the eye of law. In this regard he relied upon the case of A.V. Papayya Sastry and others v. Govt. of A.P and other (2007) 4 SCC 221 : ( AIR 2007 SC 1546 ). 23. That with regard to the maintainability of the application for review before the Deputy Registrar, it was submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh (2000) 3 SCC 581 : ( AIR 2000 SC 1165 ) has held that the authority would have power to review his order on the basis of newly discovered facts amounting to fraud and in case he is convinced that the order was sought by fraud, misrepresentation of such a dimension as would effect the very basis of the claim. 24. That the counsel for the respondent has submitted that there was forgery, manipulation and fudging of the records, which happened way back in 1994-1995, and the Report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, the contention which has been raised by the respondent was duly considered by the Deputy Registrar, and therefore there is no need for interference in the said order. 25. Sri. Apoorva Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners rebutting the plea of alternative remedy submitted that the plea of alternate remedy would not operate as a bar to the petitioner from maintaining the present writ petition, inasmuch as the Deputy Registrar has passed the order in gross violation of the directions of this court, and he has passed the impugned order without deciding the issue of maintainability and therefore this fact can very well be examined by this Court itself, rather than relegating the petitioner to the appellate authority. 26. I have heard the counsel of the parties and perused the record. 27. The counsel of the respondent has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition stating that the petitioner has alternative remedy of Appeal. It is evident that 12/02/2019 has been passed in compliance of the directions of this court dated 14/11/2018. 26. I have heard the counsel of the parties and perused the record. 27. The counsel of the respondent has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition stating that the petitioner has alternative remedy of Appeal. It is evident that 12/02/2019 has been passed in compliance of the directions of this court dated 14/11/2018. One of the grounds raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the said order has been passed without complying the directions passed by this Court, and therefore in such circumstances this aspect can be looked into in the present writ petition and the petitioner may not be relegated before the appellate authority. Having considered the submission of the parties I find force in the contention of the petitioner. One does have to delve deep to examine this issue, as on the face of it is evident that the Deputy Registrar was directed to decide all the questions including the question of maintainability of the review application which he is admittedly not done, and therefore this ground is sufficient for entertaining this petition and to pass appropriate orders. In the peculiar set of circumstances of this case, the preliminary objection regarding alternative remedy raised by the counsel of the respondent is rejected. 28. The second issue which has been canvassed by the respondent, is with regard to the fact that once a finding of fact has been recorded, that the orders passed on the basis of fraud, then all the subsequent actions deserves to be annulled, and the Deputy Registrar in such circumstances is clothed with all the power to recall and review his own orders. The counsel of the respondent in this regard has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of United India insurance Company Ltd. (supra). 29. A Perusal of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 would indicate that there is no provision of review with the Deputy Registrar while exercising power under section 12-D of the said Act. The law in this regard has also settled, that Judicial/Quasi Judicial authority will not have power to review his own order unless there is express permission of the same in the statute. In the case of Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union v. Birla Cotton Spg. and Wvg. The law in this regard has also settled, that Judicial/Quasi Judicial authority will not have power to review his own order unless there is express permission of the same in the statute. In the case of Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union v. Birla Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd. (2005) 13 SCC 777 : ( AIR 2005 SC 1782 ), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:- 19. Applying these principles it is apparent that where a court or quasi-judicial authority having jurisdiction to adjudicate on merit proceeds to do so, its judgment or order can be reviewed on merit only if the court or the quasi-judicial authority is vested with power of review by express provision or by necessary implication. 30. That the Deputy Registrar therefore on the face of it, proceeded to reviews his order judgment without there being express provision. The learned counsel of the respondent on the other hand has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India insurance Company Ltd. (supra) submitting that in the circumstances of the present case the Deputy Registrar could review his order as the other side has played fraud. A careful examination of the facts in the present case will disclose that the said judgment will not apply to the facts of the present case. In the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court it was held "that no court or tribunal can be regarded as powerless to recall its own orders if it is convinced that the order was wrangled through fraud or misrepresentation of such a dimension as would effect the very basis of the claim". 31. In the instant matter, it is not the case of the respondents that any fraud was committed by the petitioners or any other party, which led to passing of the order dated 06/01/2018 and 16/10/2018 which has been reviewed by the Deputy Registrar. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has clearly held in paragraph 16 that the order under review should have been passed on the basis of facts amounting to fraud, and in such a situation the court or tribunal would have the power to recall/review its order. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has clearly held in paragraph 16 that the order under review should have been passed on the basis of facts amounting to fraud, and in such a situation the court or tribunal would have the power to recall/review its order. In the present case the respondent No. 3 in its counter-affidavit in paragraph 3 (iv) have themselves have stated that the list of office-bearers/Committee of Management for the year 1994-95 which was furnished to the Deputy Registrar it was alleged, that seven duly elected member of the Committee of Management had voluntarily given up from the membership of the society, and in their place 7 new members had been inducted and the signature of the 7 outgoing members were forged and fabricated. It is the case of the respondents that the list containing the forged signatures was duly approved by the Deputy Registrar in 1994-95, and it is this list that the respondents are aggrieved with and are persuading the authorities to declare the same as null and void. 32. No further discussion or definitive finding is required with regard to the aforesaid issue at this stage in light of the consideration of the following issues raised by the parties. 33. The other issue which arises in the present case is with regard to the fact as to whether The Deputy Registrar, having been directed by this court to consider the issue of maintainability while deciding the issue again after giving opportunity of hearing the parties, could ignore the directions of the Court? 34. That in writ petition No. 32909 of 2018 (MS) this Hon'ble Court noticed the fact that the review application was entertained by the Deputy Registrar, who without issuing notices to the petitioner's, and by means of ex parte order dated 24/10/2018 allowed the application without even providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner's, and therefore in the aforesaid circumstances directed the Deputy Registrar to decide the matter after hearing all the concerned parties, and further directed him to decide all questions including the question of maintainability of the review application. 35. All the parties agree that the Deputy Registrar while passing the order dated 12/02/2019 has not considered or decided the issue of maintainability of the review application. 35. All the parties agree that the Deputy Registrar while passing the order dated 12/02/2019 has not considered or decided the issue of maintainability of the review application. When this court in its order dated 14/11/2018 had specifically directed the Deputy Registrar to decide the question of maintainability of the review application, then he was mandated to take cognizance of the said direction, and was duty bound to consider and decide the issue as directed and by not deciding the same the Deputy Registrar has clearly violated the directions of this Court and in any view of the matter the impugned order dated 12/02/2019 is liable to be set aside on this score alone. 36. I have perused the entire record, and from the pleadings and the various orders annexed in this petition as well as the affidavits filed by the respondents and we are constrained to observe that the office of the Deputy Registrar which is a very important office in relation to the proper functioning of all the society registered in the State of U.P., is not functioning in the manner it should. That the Deputy Registrar rejected the application preferred by Bhagwati Prasad Bajpai on 06/01/2018, he further rejected the review application on 16/10/2018 after obtaining legal opinion from the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel, Lucknow, who categorically opined that he had no power of review. While rejecting the application for review he observed that in case the applicant is aggrieved then he is a remedy to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction. Surprisingly he did not feel bound by his own order dated 16/10/2018. The Deputy Registrar again entertained yet another application and on the third occasion allowed the review application and granted the relief sought by the applicant, solely on the ground that in the interregnum period Report of the Forensic Science Laboratory has been obtained. The aforesaid facts clearly disclose the state of affairs in the functioning of the Deputy Registrar which leaves much to be desired. 37. The aforesaid facts clearly disclose the state of affairs in the functioning of the Deputy Registrar which leaves much to be desired. 37. That in light of the above, it is clear that the Deputy Registrar has passed the order dated 12/02/2019 without deciding the issue relating to the maintainability of the review application, as directed by this Hon'ble Court in the order dated 14/11/2018, and therefore, to that extent the order dated 12/02/2019 has been passed in clear defiance of the orders of this Court, and is therefore arbitrary and is therefore set aside. The matter is again remanded to the Deputy Registrar to decide it in terms of the earlier judgment of this Court dated 14/11/2018 expeditiously say within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. Needless to say that all the parties shall co-operate in the hearing and no unnecessary adjournments shall be granted. 38. The writ petition is allowed.