JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 25.02.2000 annexure no.18 to the writ petition passed by Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur and also to issue direction to respondent no.1, Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur to accept the amendment of the bye-laws as submitted by the petitioners and to file the same in his office and to take all action in accordance therewith. 3. In brief, facts of the case are that originally the aforesaid society was registered on 04.11.1955 with Registration No.283/1955-56 i.e. annexure no.1 to the writ petition. Petitioner no.2 was a member of the general body of the society and was also its Joint Secretary. The society has been constituted with the objective of establishing, running and managing eye hospitals and it has established an eye hospital at Gorakhpur city. The society does not receive any grant-in-aid from the State Government. The society has been established by a group of persons seeking public interest including private individuals and also persons holding different public offices at the relevant point of time. Memorandum of association dated 27.07.1955 is annexed as annexure no.2 to the writ petition. The registration of the society has been renewed from time to time and has lastly been renewed on 20.02.1996 for a period of five years from 10.10.1995. The certificate of renewal is annexed as annexure no.3. The memorandum of association and the bye-laws of the society were amended in 1996 and the same have been filed in the office of Assistant Registrar concerned which is annexed as annexure no.4 to this writ petition. Under the bye-laws several officers were ex officio to the society. Such officers had neither been participating in the meeting of the general body/committee of management of the society nor taking any interest in any work of the society and the eye hospital run by it. On account of such facts, repeated difficulties were felt in the smooth management of the society and the eye hospital run by it. 4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, a meeting of the general body of the society was convened for 05.09.1999 by means of an agenda notice dated 22.07.1999 that is annexure-5 to the writ petition. On account of such facts, repeated difficulties were felt in the smooth management of the society and the eye hospital run by it. 4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, a meeting of the general body of the society was convened for 05.09.1999 by means of an agenda notice dated 22.07.1999 that is annexure-5 to the writ petition. In the meeting of the general body a decision was taken at item no.4 resolving that the office bearers of the society should be elected by the general body and for amending the bye laws of the society for effectuating such purpose. It is annexure no.6 to the writ petition. 5. In view of that decision taken by the general body, a meeting of the executive committee was convened for 22.09.1999 by means of an agenda notice dated 06.09.1999. True copy of the agenda notice is annexure-7 to this writ petition. In the meeting of the executive committee held on 22.09.1999, the executive committee considered the proposal for amendment of the by-laws in exercise of powers conferred under bye-laws no.24(5) read with clauses 25 and 29 of the bye-laws. The executive committee considered and approved the proposed amendments to the bye-laws and authorized the petitioner no.2 Joint Secretary, to undertake further proceeding in pursuance of such decision. True copy of the proceeding of the executive committee dated 22.09.1999 is at annexure-8 to the writ petition. By means of an agenda notice dated 23.09.1999, a meeting of the general body was convened for 08.10.1999 for considering the aforesaid amendments to the bye-laws. Copy of the agenda notice dated 23.09.1999 is annexed as annexure-9 to the petition. 6. In the meeting of the general body held on 08.10.1999, the proposed amendments were considered and approved and the petitioner no.2 was authorized for convening a further meeting of the general body for getting such proceeding confirmed. True copy of the proceeding of the general body dated 08.10.1999 is annexed as annexure-10 to the petition. In accordance with the decision of the general body a meeting of the general body was again convened and held on 28.11.1999 by means of agenda notice dated 29.10.1999. True copy of the agenda notice dated 29.10.1999 is annexed as annexure-11. In the meeting of general body held on 28.11.1999 the amendments to the bye-laws were approved and the proceeding of the general body held on 08.10.1999 was confirmed. True copy of the agenda notice dated 29.10.1999 is annexed as annexure-11. In the meeting of general body held on 28.11.1999 the amendments to the bye-laws were approved and the proceeding of the general body held on 08.10.1999 was confirmed. Proceeding of the general body dated 28.11.1999 is annexed as annexure no.12. It is necessary to bring on record the amendments accorded approval by the general body on the said date. True copy of the amendments to the bye-laws, as approved by the executive committee and its general body is annexed as annexure-13. 7. All the purpose pertaining to the aforesaid were tendered by the office of the Assistant Registrar by petitioner no.2 in the month of November, 1999 itself which were not accepted by the Assistant Registrar. The papers were again submitted alongwith the covering letter dated 12.12.1999 addressed to the Assistant Registrar which is annexed as annexure-14 to the writ petition but the Assistant Registrar has declined to take any action thereon. There does not exist any justification for refusal of the Assistant Registrar regarding approval of the amendment in the bye-laws which have been approved by the executive committee and also by the general body of the society. 8. It was repeatedly felt that all ex officio office bearers like District Magistrate and CDO etc. were unable to devote any time to the affairs of the society. Consequently, the functioning of the society was severely disrupted. Therefore, a need of changing bye-laws of the society was felt. Even the then DM has openly stated that he may be relieved of his duties as the president of the society as he was unable to devote any time due to official commitments. A copy of the minutes of the said meeting is annexed as annexure-15 to the writ petition. The problem of the ex officio officer bearers, due to final commitments preventing them to attempt to the affairs of the society, further aggravated. The objection and aim of the existence/affirmation of the society were being defeated, as a result of this system of ex officio officer bearers. Communications were sent to the DM and other ex officio officer bearers, regarding amendments with their respective parts. The said letter is annexed as annexure no.16 to the writ petition. But no reply was sent by the District Magistrate and other ex officio office bearers to the said communication. 9. Communications were sent to the DM and other ex officio officer bearers, regarding amendments with their respective parts. The said letter is annexed as annexure no.16 to the writ petition. But no reply was sent by the District Magistrate and other ex officio office bearers to the said communication. 9. The Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur is under pressure of the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur and is unable to decide the matter in an unbiased manner. Further he has already disclosed his mind on the said controversy. On account of the inaction on the part of the Assistant Registrar, petitioners were compelled to file Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.712 of 2000 with the prayer to issue order/direction to the respondent no.1 to accept the amendments in the bye-laws as approved by the general body within a specific period and also to issue an order and direction to the respondent no.1 to take all action pertaining to the society in question on the basis of the amended bye-laws, as approved by the general body. 10. The aforesaid writ petition was finally disposed of by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.S. Zaidi by means of judgment dated 07.01.2000. Its true copy is annexed as annexure-17 to the writ petition. 11. Certified copy of the judgment dated 07.01.2000 was filed before the Assistant Registrar. Acting on the basis thereof the Deputy Registrar has proceeded to pass an order dated 25.02.2000 rejecting the amendment in byelaws which is annexed as annexure-18 to the writ petition. 12. Under Section 4-A of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (for short ‘the Act’) an alteration in the rules of the societies only required to be intimated to the Registrar within 30 days of the alteration. Such an intimation has already been effected with regard to the alteration effected in the rules, as detailed above. The amendment so notified to the Assistant Registrar are required to be accepted by him. The Assistant Registrar has no power under the Act to accept the amendments to the rules of the societies. Rejection order rejecting the amendment in the bye-laws is totally unauthorized and without jurisdiction. The only power conferred upon the Assistant Registrar with regard to amendments is with regard to alteration in the name of the society or in the objects of the society. Rejection order rejecting the amendment in the bye-laws is totally unauthorized and without jurisdiction. The only power conferred upon the Assistant Registrar with regard to amendments is with regard to alteration in the name of the society or in the objects of the society. Apart from the aforesaid, the Assistant Registrar has not been conferred with any other power pertaining to the amendments in the bye-laws/rules of the society. 13. The Assistant Registrar has been conferred power to see that the amendments have been made in accordance with the provisions of the Act. He cannot withhold alteration affected in accordance with the Act. Under the original bye-laws, the District Magistrate was the ex officioPresident and the CDO was the ex officio Secretary of the society. Because both the officers were office bearers of the society, the Assistant Registrar was not taking any action on the basis of the amendments. Since it is a private society, the District Magistrate and CDO cannot dictate the constitution of the society. The impugned order is the result of the influence exercised by both the officers. The impugned order is misconceived. The power of the general body of the society cannot be curtailed in any manner. 14. The Deputy Registrar had committed error in holding that petitioner no.2 was not authorized to convene the meeting in which the decision for amending the bye-laws had been taken as it was the meeting convened on requisition on the request of several members of general body. The petitioner was holding the office of Joint Secretary and was duty bound to convene requisition meeting of the general body. The impugned order is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have no other equally efficacious remedy, hence this writ petition has been preferred. 15. All the documents referred, have been annexed with the petition. 16. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.1, Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur that the society runs in accordance with law without any difficulty. It is incorrect that there is difficulty in running the hospital due to the presence of ex officio officers. There was no justification for sending the agenda by the Joint Secretary acting as the Secretary. Therefore, the Joint Secretary acted beyond her jurisdiction. The notice dated 05.09.1999 issued by Dr. It is incorrect that there is difficulty in running the hospital due to the presence of ex officio officers. There was no justification for sending the agenda by the Joint Secretary acting as the Secretary. Therefore, the Joint Secretary acted beyond her jurisdiction. The notice dated 05.09.1999 issued by Dr. Manorama Singh Agarwal was illegal and has been sent by her in defiance of her rights. She had no right to call for the meeting unless it is approved by the President and Secretary for which she had not been authorized. Since the proceeding was not in accordance with the regulation, therefore, it was not registered. The authority to take action under the relevant sections of the regulation is vested in ex officio President/Secretary. In this regard sufficient information has been given by the office of the respondent vide letter no.3518 dated 08.02.2000. In compliance of the Hon'ble Court's order dated 07.01.2000 the order no.2785/dated 25.02.2000 has been communicated to Dr. Manorama Singh Agarwal. It is nowhere prescribed that if any amendment is sent, it would be deemed to be permitted automatically within thirty days. The petitioners have no right to tamper with the arrangements of the organization. Petitioner no.2 can only maintain and operate the hospital run by the institution. The act done by petitioner no.2 was only to fulfil her vested interest so that she could dominate the hospital run by the institution. No such resolution has been passed by the office bearers/members of the society. It is wrong to say that under the influence of District Magistrate and CDO, the respondent no.1 had passed the order but since the proposed amendment was neither presented in the executive nor in general body, hence the proposed amendment was rejected. Since the petitioner no.2 was the Medical Superintendent of the Hospital and there is provision that the Hospital Superintendent would be the Joint Secretary, therefore, she can only look after the hospital arrangements. She had no right to make amendment in the arrangements of the organization by increasing unauthorized person. Hence, the petition be dismissed. 17. Sri Raees Ahmad, the then Assistant Registrar, Firms, Society and Chits, Gorakhpur filed a supplementary counter affidavit in which he has repeated the previous version of the counter affidavit and has said that the impugned order was passed in accordance with law and the meeting held by Dr. Hence, the petition be dismissed. 17. Sri Raees Ahmad, the then Assistant Registrar, Firms, Society and Chits, Gorakhpur filed a supplementary counter affidavit in which he has repeated the previous version of the counter affidavit and has said that the impugned order was passed in accordance with law and the meeting held by Dr. Manorama Singh had been cancelled by the District Magistrate. He has also annexed the bye-laws of the committee from which it is very much clear that the Joint Secretary has no right to make an amendment in the bye-laws of the society. 18. On behalf of respondent no.3, CDO, Gorakhpur, a counter affidavit has been filed by Sri Nand Kishor Singh by which the allegations have been denied and it has been said that petitioner no.2 is an employee on the post of Medical Superintendent, Eye Hospital, Gorakhpur. She has an arbitrary and callous manner of working. There were several complaints against her work and conduct. CMO, Gorakhpur who happens to be the Vice President of the society held an inquiry against her. All the documents were in her possession but she declined to furnish the same. A report regarding misconduct and misbehaviour of petitioner no.2 submitted by CDO/Secretary has been annexed as annexure no.CA-1. When the authorities started taking stringent action in accordance with the bye-laws of the society, she came out in open deficiency and started acting being prejudicial and against the aim, object and interest of the society. According to clause-9 of the bye-laws, the Secretary would be the Chief Executive Officer of the society to control and manage all other works and only he can institute/initiate legal action on behalf of the society. The petitioner no.2 is merely an employee and ex officio Joint Secretary who is not authorized for instituting and conducting any legal proceeding for or on behalf of the society. The CDO, Gorakhpur/Secretary wrote a letter to District Magistrate, Gorakhpur/President regarding misconduct and irregularities committed by petitioner no.2 which is annexed as annexure no.CA-2. The executive committee had also written a letter (annexure CA-3) for taking action against petitioner no.2 to the District Magistrate/President. The President and Secretary started initiation of inquiry and SDM, Sadar, Gorakhpur was directed to hold a preliminary inquiry who happens to be a member of the executive committee which is annexed as annexure no.CA-4. The executive committee had also written a letter (annexure CA-3) for taking action against petitioner no.2 to the District Magistrate/President. The President and Secretary started initiation of inquiry and SDM, Sadar, Gorakhpur was directed to hold a preliminary inquiry who happens to be a member of the executive committee which is annexed as annexure no.CA-4. The SDM concerned submitted preliminary inquiry report dated 06.11.1999 i.e. annexure no.CA-5 and recommended suspension of petitioner no.2 after finding her guilty for various irregularities and misconduct. In a meeting dated 13.12.1999, the executive committee recommended suspension of petitioner no.2 (annexure CA-6). Thereafter petitioner no.2 was suspended vide order dated 23.12.1999 which is annexure no.CA-7. The CMO, as inquiry officer, served a charge sheet on the petitioner on 16.02.2000 which is annexure no.CA-8. The report of CMO is annexure no.CA-9 in which he recommended termination of the petitioner no.2 from the service. In this regard a letter annexure no.CA-10 was written by the Secretary to District Magistrate, Gorakhpur on 23.06.2000 to convene a meeting of the executive committee to consider the recommendations of the inquiry officer which was held on 07.07.2000. The minutes of the meeting is annexure no.CA-11. In this meeting a sub-committee was constituted to consider the report of CMO who submitted its report of 11.07.2000 and gave a finding that the report of the inquiry officer was correct and the executive committee should take proper action against the petitioner no.2. It is annexure no.CA-12. On 17.07.2000 a meeting of the executive committee was held under the presidentship of District Magistrate, Gorakhpur in which the executive committee considered the report of the inquiry officer and the subcommittee and unanimously resolved that it is not in the interest of society to allow petitioner no.2 to remain on the post of Medical Superintendent. The minutes of the meeting are annexed as annexure no.CA-13. In pursuance of the resolution dated 17.07.2000, a final notice was served upon the petitioner on 14.08.2000 which is annexure no.CA-14. It appears that the petitioners concocted and fabricated few documents purporting to have been related to some imaginary meetings and tried to change the entire basic fabrication and fundamental features of the society. She attempted that no ex officio member should remain as an office bearer in the said society so that there may not be any control over the misdeeds of petitioner no.2. She attempted that no ex officio member should remain as an office bearer in the said society so that there may not be any control over the misdeeds of petitioner no.2. Even if it is assumed that any such meeting was held, the same is not tenable in law in view of clause 25 of the bye-laws. 19. The documents referred in the counter affidavit are on record in the said affidavit. 20. Two supplementary counter affidavits have been filed stating therein that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner no.2, Dr. Manorama Singh Agarwal has no authority to file the writ petition more so the status and capacity of petitioner no.2 has seized to exist when she was dismissed from services as medical superintendent of the hospital vide order 04.12.2004 passed by District Magistrate, Gorakhpur as ex officio President of the society and she has also crossed the age of superannuation on 02.07.2006 since she was born on 02.07.1946. Even then she has not vacated the official bungalow in spite of several notices. Dr. Manorama Singh Agarwal had filed this petition in the capacity of Joint Secretary of the society, hence the same has become infructuous as the society is running as usual, she has no legal authority to pursue or prosecute the present petition after her superannuation on 02.07.2006. She was the Joint Secretary of the society being the Medical Superintendent of the Hospital as per bye-laws but after dismissal from service on 04.12.2004 she has lost the status of Joint Secretary of the society. The dismissal order was challenged in Writ Petition No.28159 of 2005 in which no interim stay order was granted and the same has been dismissed on merit vide judgment dated 17.08.2016. The amendment was rejected on the ground that under the bye-laws the Joint Secretary was not empowered to bring such amendments and more so it was not approved by the District Magistrate and CDO in the capacity of ex officio President and Secretary. The aforesaid judgment, registration certificate, bye-laws, registration renewal certificate, date of birth certificate of Dr. Manorama Singh and letters issued by CDO/Secretary of the society have been annexed with the petition. 21. The petitioner no.2 has filed rejoinder affidavit, one supplementary rejoinder affidavit, and two supplementary affidavits in which she has reiterated the version of the petition. The aforesaid judgment, registration certificate, bye-laws, registration renewal certificate, date of birth certificate of Dr. Manorama Singh and letters issued by CDO/Secretary of the society have been annexed with the petition. 21. The petitioner no.2 has filed rejoinder affidavit, one supplementary rejoinder affidavit, and two supplementary affidavits in which she has reiterated the version of the petition. No new facts have been brought in the knowledge of the Court. The petitioner no.2 could not counter that there is any provision under which a Joint Secretary can move an amendment and she had not been suspended and terminated from the post of Hospital Superintendent, that she has not attained the age of superannuation and that her termination has not been upheld from this Court. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the judgment in Adhyaksha, Committee of Management, Sri Vimal Nath Digamber Jain, Teerth Kshetra Committee, Kampil, Farrukhabad and another Vs. Dy. Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Kanpur Mandal, Kanpur and another, 2011 (1) ADJ 37 (NOC) in which the learned Single Judge of this Court held that there is no need of registration of amendment by the Registrar. It takes effect in registered bye-laws on intimation of amendment carried out in the rules of the society. If such formality is completed, no further action is necessary. If any person disputes the resolution passed for the said purpose, he has remedy to file civil suit. 23. In Allahabad High School Society and others Vs. State of UP and others, 2011 (4) ADJ 887 (DB) this Court has referred the judgment of Prabha Shanker Mishra and others Vs. State of UP and others, 2009 (77) ALR 713 in which it has been held that any amendment made by the society in rules or bye-laws, the only requirement is that its intimation is given to the Registrar and the said provision did not give any power to the Registrar to adjudicate or decide the objections with regard to the said amendment in the rules or regulation of the society. 24. Further, the Court has referred the precedent of Liyakat Marquise Khan Vs. 24. Further, the Court has referred the precedent of Liyakat Marquise Khan Vs. Christ Church College Society, Kanpur and others, 2010 (8) ADJ 465 (DB) in which it has been held that Section 4-A of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (for short ‘the Act’) does not require any adjudication on the part of the Registrar and the only requirement under the said provision was to bring to the notice of the Registrar the amendment in the rules. 25. In this regard some more judicial precedents are also relevant which propound a balanced view with regard to Section 4-A of the Act. In Managing Committee, Khalsa Middle School Vs. Mohinder Kaur, (1993) 4 SCC 26 (Supp) the Apex Court has held that the only power vested in the Registrar under Section 4-A of the Act was to examine the fact as to whether the meeting of the society had been validly held in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules of the society. Only scope of this aspect could be to make factual verification as to whether the meeting was validly convened, due notice was given, quorum was completed and it was passed by the required majority. Beyond that the Assistant Registrar could not go into the question of the merits of the amendments and adjudicate upon the same while exercising powers vested under Section 4-A of the Act. 26. In Allahabad High School Society (supra) the Division Bench has also held that under Section 4-A of the Act the Registrar can examine as to whether the meeting for amending the rules of the society had been validly convened or not. In Liyakat Marquise Khan (supra) it has been held that under Section 4-A of the Act, the Registrar will have the power to examine whether amendments of the bye-laws forwarded to him are from the list of the office bearers taken on record under Section 4 of the Act and at the time of renewal, to examine whether the amendments are such that renewal has to be granted. 27. From the above judicial precedents, it comes out that the Registrar is not a silent spectator. At least he has to see and examine as to whether the meeting of the society had been validly held in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules of the Society. 27. From the above judicial precedents, it comes out that the Registrar is not a silent spectator. At least he has to see and examine as to whether the meeting of the society had been validly held in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules of the Society. He shall see that the meeting was validly convened, due notice was given, quorum was completed and the amendment was passed by the required majority or not. 28. From the above discussion, it has been established that the petitioner no.2 had no right to sue. She had no right to introduce an amendment in the bye-laws. She is no longer Medical Superintendent of the Hospital and she had been suspended and terminated in accordance with law which has been confirmed by this Court. If it is accepted that she is a life member of the society even then she had no right to move the amendment in byelaws, therefore, the proposed amendment was rightly declined by the Registrar. She has no power or right to sue, institute and maintain this petition. 29. On over all discussion, this Court is of the view that the petition is totally misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. 30. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with costs.