Hon’ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State and Sri H.G.S.Parihar, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri G.M. Kamil, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.

2. A preliminary objection has been filed by respondent No. 4 as to the maintainability of the writ petition stating therein that since petitioner No. 2 is neither Manager nor Secretary of the committee of management of the society, as such he could not file this petition alleging himself to be the Secretary of the committee of management of the society. It has also been stated that no valid resolution of the committee of management of the society has been filed authorizing the petitioner No. 2 to file this petition thus on these grounds, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

3. So far as the locus of the petitioner No. 1 to institute these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution is concerned, the same will have no relevance for the reason that basic dispute raised by the petitioner No. 2 is in respect of acceptance of his alleged resignation. The resignation accepted and acted upon by the society which has been recognized by the De