JUDGMENT :

(Abdul Moin, J.)

1. Heard Shri Anil Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Apoorva Tiwari for the petitioners, learned Standing counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 & 2 as well as Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for caveator-respondent no.4 and Shri Raj Kumar Singh, who has filed an application for impleadment and has been permitted to argue the matter as an intervenor.

2. The instant petition has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 26.08.2023 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Ayodhya Region, Ayodhya, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition with a further prayer of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to not give effect to the amended bye-laws as contained in annexure no.2 to the petition, and to declare the amended bye-laws as non-est and to restrain the respondent nos.3 & 4 from taking any decision on the basis of amended bye-laws and the impugned order dated 26.08.2023.

3. A preliminary objection has been raised by Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents which is also supported by Shri Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel who has filed an application for impleadment that against the order impugned, the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal as provided under Section 4 (1-A) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1860") as applicable in State of Uttar Pradesh.

4. Elaborating the same, the argument of learned counsel for the private respondents is that as by means of impugned order dated 26.08.2023, the Deputy Registrar has approved the amended bye-laws of the society and has registered the said amendments as such, an appeal lies against the said order to the Commissioner of the division in whose jurisdiction the Headquarter of the society lies, in this case Ayodhya, and it is thus prayed that the writ petition be dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy.

5. Contradicting the same, Shri Anil Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate argues that as Sub-section (1-A) of Section 4 of the Act, 1860 has been inserted after Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, 1860 and prior to Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, 1860 as such, the remedy of appeal would only lie against the order passed by the competent authority under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, 1860.

6. Elaborating the same, the argument is that it is only Subsection (2) of Section 4 of the Act, 1860, per which, after the order is passed under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, 1860, that the Registrar while sending the list mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, 1860, would send to the Registrar a copy of Memorandum of Association including any alteration, extension or abridgement of purposes made under Section 12, and of the rules of the society corrected up to date.

7. The argument is that as the amendments of the rules of the society are to be sent under Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, 1860 and Sub-section (1-A) of Section 4 of the Act, 1860 gives the remedy of an appeal under that section, meaning thereby, that it would only be where the order has been passed under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, 1860 that an appeal can be filed but as in the instant case, it is the amended rules which have been accepted which would take the order impugned within the realm of Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, 1860 and thus, the petitioners would not be having a remedy of appeal against the said order leaving the only remedy available to them to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. From the arguments as raised by learned counsels for the contesting parties and perusal of records, this Court first proceeds to consider the preliminary objections.

10. By means of the order impugned dated 26.08.2023, the Deputy Registrar has approved the amendment in the bye-laws of the society an