1. - This is petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 29.1.73 of respondent the Registrar of Societies Jaipur by which he has withdrawn his earlier order dated 23rd of June, 1971 which had granted registration for the petitioner society known as Adarsh Bal Niketan Jhunjhunu, under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the 'Act').

2. Section 3 of the Act provides for the certification by the Registrar of a society under the Act. This certificate was issued to the petitioner society by the respondent the Registrar as certificate 61 of 1971 dated 23.6.71. The petition has been filed through the Secretary Adarsh Bal Niketan Jhunjhunu with the grievance that the order dated 29th of January, 1973, withdrawing its registration, has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the order is therefore void. An objection is also taken that the Registrar has no power to review its earlier order granting certificate of registration to the petitioner.

3. The respondent Registrar in reply filed has not controverted that no opportunity was given to the petitioner before the order of withdrawal of certificate was passed. He has sought to justify his order on the ground, by pointing out that one Jhunjhunu Pragati Sangh Trust had requested him that the registered Society Adarsh Bal Niketan be asked to change its name and constitution as the name was already in existence at the time of the registration. It appears that an application dated 6th of May, 1972 was filed before the Registrar in which the Pragati Sangh Trust made a grievance that the Adarsh Bal Niketan school is run by the Trust for the last 11 years and that Shri Banwarilal, the Secretary of the Society has wrongly got the registration in the name of Adarsh Bal Niketan. It also pointed out that there was a dispute going on between the said Shri Banwarilal and the trust for some time past and that the trust had also filed litigation in the Bombay High Court. The trust, which was allowed to intervene in the petition, has also given details about its litigation with Srhi Banwarilal and has pointed out that the said Shri Banwarilal was a Headmaster of Adarsh Bal Niketan school run, financed and managed by the Pragati Sangh since 1965 until 1971. It also objected that the said Shri Banwarilal in applying for the name of Adarsh Bal Niketan to be registered was motivated by object of exploring the good name of the Institution run by Jhunjhunu Pragati Sangh and secured all the concessions and advantages and other benefits flowing there from. As regards the issue of notice, the position taken is that though no formal notice was given to the petitioner to withdraw the registration but it did have knowledge of the fact as the true facts have been brought to the notice of the respondent by the Pragati Sangh challenging the registration of the society. Though in the petition grievance has been made to the action of the respondent on that point, namely, that there is no provision in the Act to review the earlier order granting registration and second that the order has been passed without giving a hearing to the petitioner. Mr Mridul counsel for the petitioner has stated that he is not pressing the first point and that he only urges for the quashing of the order on the second point, namely, that no opportunity having been given tot he petitioner before the order of cancellation was passed. When the matter came up for hearing on 8th of July, 1976, the counsel for the intervener Mr. Pareekh had objected that there was not affidavit filed by the petitioner to the effect that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. It appears that though this fact had been stated in the petition in para 6 "(iii) No affidavit accompanying the petition deposed to this para as true to the knowledge". In these circumstances I directed the petitioner to file a proper affidavit in this behalf and al