- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. By an order dated 20-10-1981, which is Annexure-CAl to the counter-affidavit, renewal of registration of the society obtained by the petitioner in the name of Shree Chaharwati Shiksha Sangh, Akola, Agra, was cancelled. The said order was affirmed on an appeal preferred by the petitioner, by an order dated 1-12- 1982, which is Annexure-CA2 to the counter- af fidavit. These orders were challenged by the petitioner, by means of Writ petition No. 328 of 1983. Th said writ petition was dis missed by an order dated 30th January 1996, being is Annexure-5 to the writ petition, which runs as follows: "it is 1983 petition. The petition is taken up in the revised list. None appears to press this petition. Having perused the petition, we are of the opinion that no ground is made out for inter ference in writ jurisdiction. This petition has no merit and it is dismissed. Stay order, if any, stands vacated. " Subsequently, an application for recalling the said order was filed. By an order dated 19-4-1996, which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The said application was disposed of by the following order: "the petition was dismissed in default on 30-1-1996. Thus the petitioners have moved an application for recalling the order of dismissal and restoring the petition to its original number. However, learned counsel submits that no doubt the petition was dismissed in default but the fact remains that the petition had already been rendered infructuous. Thus we direct that besides dismissing the petition in default the petition has also become infructuous. With this direction this application for res toration is disposed of. "
(2.) IN the meantime by an order dated 26-8-1987 the renewal of registration of the society was granted to the petitioner in the name of the said Shree Chaharwati Shiksha Sangh, Akola, Agra. The said order is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. By an order dated 19-4-1996, which is Annexure-7 to the writ petition, the Deputy Registrar, ob served that the order contained in An nexure-3 to the writ petition was passed in pursuance of an interim order dated 6-4-1987 passed in the said Writ Petition No. 328 of 1983 subject to further orders passed in the said writ petition. It was further ob served that since the writ petition stands dismissed the order dated 20-10-1981, as affirmed by an order dated 1-12-1982, stands revived and the Order dated 26-8-1987 can not be treated to be a final, decision, Since the same was subject to the decision in the writ petition. It is this order which has been as sailed by Sri K. N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the order contained in Annexure-3 to the peti tion having stood affirmed by reason of the order dated 19-4-1996 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) the order contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition, is wholly un called for and super fluous. According to him the writ petition stood dismissed as infructuous because of the order contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition. There fore, the said order had received seal of this Court and can not be ignored, as has been sought to be made by the order, as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition. The second contention is that registration though originally used to continue for a long period but after subsequent amend ments it has to be reviewed after the prescribed period. Therefore, the order contained in Annexure-3 to the writ peti tion, being one such order can not be said to be insignificant and thrown to oblivion. Thirdly, he contends that change of the name from 'sangh' to 'samiti' is not a change at all. It is the same Organisation and, therefore, the order impugned in the said writ petition No. 328 of 1983 can not have any impact not be effective. Sri V. M. Sahai, learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand opposes the said contention on the ground that the writ petition having stood dismissed not only for default but also on account of ob servation that no ground was made out for interference, the order contained in Annexure-CAl and 2 to the counter-affidavit, stands affirmed. The application for recall ing the said order dated 30-1-1996 as con tained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, having not been allowed and the said order having not been recalled the recording of the order that the petition has become in fructuous on the submissions of the learned Counsel can not be taken to be a decision on merit so as to lend support to the learned Counsel for the petitioner's contention. Ac cording to him the order contained in An nexure-3 to the Writ petition, itself made it clear that the said order was subject to the decision in the writ petition and that the said order was passed in view of the order passed in the writ petition. Therefore, the question relating to the contention of the respondents having been left open to be decided after the decision in the writ peti tion, very well made the order subject to the result of the writ petition. Therefore, the impact of the said order has been rightly perceived by the authority while passing the order contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition. The present writ petition, there fore, is liable to be dismissed.
(3.) THE question raised by both the learned Counsel for the parties vehementally argued at the bar. Though the submission made on behalf of the petitioner painted a rozy picture in favour of the petitioner. But in reality the same can not be accepted. On the facts of this case has been observed earlier, the order contained in An-nexure-CAl and 2 was final unless set aside. This court while exercising jurisdiction can not enter into the merit once the same stands affirmed in an earlier writ proceed ing, though raised in the present case. The question is dependent on the interpretation of the order contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought to interpret the same as observed above. The said order, in my view, however, can not be treated to be an inde pendent order. The said order is to be read with Reference to the order contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The order has to be re-conciled with the earlier order. The application for recalling of the order dated 30-1-1996 was not allowed. The order dated 30-1- 1996 has not been recalled. So long the order is not recalled and no obser vation is made with regard to specific order passed on 30-1-1996 and the order having not been modified, there is no scope of the contention contending that the order dated 30- 1-1996 stood modified by order dated 19-4-1996. There can not be any application of doctrine of eclipse by reason of special characteristic appearing from the order dated 19-4-1996. It appears that the petition has also become infructuous, was an obser vation recorded on the basis of the submis sion made by the learned Counsel to the effect "that no doubt the petition was dis missed in default, but the fact remains that the petition and already been rendered in fructuous. " This submission also is not sup ported by order dated 30-1-1996. The said order while records that "none appears to press this petition", but also records that "having perused the petition we are of the opinion that no ground is made out for interference in writ jurisdiction. The peti tion was no merit and it is dismissed. ";