JUDGMENT : C. Praveen Kumar, J. Assailing the interim order dated 29.01.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.2179 of 2021, the appellants, who are third parties to the said writ petition, preferred this appeal along with an application, being I.A.No.2 of 2021, seeking leave to pursue the appeal. 2. The order impugned in the appeal is as under: “Notice before admission. Post on 19.02.2021. In terms of provisions contained under section 9 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001, the District Registrar of Societies has no competence to undertake scrutiny of the particulars furnished to him, but is only required to note the information furnished to him under section 9 of the Act. Respondent No.3 is, therefore, directed to receive the annual list for the year 2019-20 and issue certified copies to that effect and keep the information on website.” 3. It is to be noted here that the aforesaid interim order was passed by the learned single Judge on 29.01.2021. Pursuant thereto, the present appeal came to be filed before this Court. 4. Respondent No.1-writ petitioner filed a counter, bringing to the notice of the Court that the writ appellants have not come to the court with clean hands. It is stated that SOP.No.1 of 2019 was filed against the NRI Academy of Sciences-1st respondent/writ petitioner, Dr.Surapaneni Krishna Prasad-1st petitioner herein and three others, contending that Dr.Surapaneni Krishna Prasad and two others have already submitted their written resignation to the membership and in the Executive Committee meeting held on 20.04.2015, their resignation was accepted and the said action of the Executive Committee was ratified by the Annual General Body. The 1st petitioner herein along with the other resigned members filed W.P.No.14406 of 2015 and the same is pending. In pursuance of the interim order passed in the said writ petition, the 4th respondent-the District Registrar of Societies, considered their representations/ objections and observed that the Registrar of Society, Vijayawada is not the appropriate to decide the veracity of the alleged resignations and the Civil Court is only the appropriate Forum to decide authenticity of the resignation. But, the 1st petitioner herein and the other two resigned members did not approach the competent court. Therefore, it is not correct for the petitioners to state that they never submitted the resignations. But, the 1st petitioner herein and the other two resigned members did not approach the competent court. Therefore, it is not correct for the petitioners to state that they never submitted the resignations. It is further contended that the conducting of general body meeting was not the subject matter of the writ petition and it has nothing to do with the acknowledgment issued by the 4th respondent duly complying with the interim order passed by the learned single Judge. The order of the learned Single Judge is perfectly justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Since the said order has already been implemented, it is contended that the only remedy available to the petitioners would be to invoke Section 29 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001, for redressal of their grievance. It is, therefore, contended that the issue in the writ appeal does not survive in view of the implementation of the interim order and, accordingly, the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. From a perusal of the averments of the counter-affidavit, as noted above, it is clear that in respect of the resignations, the 1st petitioner has already approached this Court, by filing W.P.No.14406 of 2015. As per the interim orders passed by this Court in the said writ petition, the 4th respondent has considered the representations/ objections of the petitioners and passed orders rejecting the same, observing that the civil Court is the appropriate and competent forum to decide the authenticity of the resignations. However, the petitioners did not choose to approach the civil Court. It is also to be noted here that even before filing of the writ appeal, the order of the learned single Judge was implemented. This fact was not brought to the notice of the Court during the course of hearing. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in/and Writ Appeal No.50 of 2021, we see no ground to grant leave to the appellants to file this appeal. 7. Accordingly, I.A.No.2 of 2021 is dismissed. 8. Resultantly, the Writ Appeal also stands dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.