The court's power to appoint a Commissioner to hold elections under S. 11 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli, includes disputes between the managing committee and the members of the society, and the court has the power to appoint a Commissioner to hold elections when both sides are in favor of holding elections and there is a disability preventing the managing committee from conducting the elections.

( 1 ) THE parties appear to be more busy in fighting in Courts of Law than playing in Courts of Football. There were as many as 3 suits besides the petition under appeal not to speak of the numerous interlocutory applications and the appeals therefrom. It is not necessary to trace the entire litigation except to refer to one or two at the appropriate place.

( 2 ) THE respondent is the Kurnool District Football Association, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It is affiliated to the Andhra Pradesh Football Association, Hyderabad, the first appellant herein. The appellant is a Society registered under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Public societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli, for short, the Act. Appellants 2 to 9 are the members of the Managing Committee of the State Football Association, elected in the year 1976 for a term of two years. Their term expired in 1978. No elections were conducted thereafter.

( 3 ) THE present petition O. P. No. 5 of 1981 was filed by the Kurnool District Football Association under S. 11 of the Act for a permanent injunction restraining the appellants 1 to 9 from acting for and on behalf of the State Football Association and to appoint a Commissioner to hold elections for the managing committee and office-bearers of the Association. Its main grievance was that the members of the managing committee are continuing beyond their term and neglecting to hold the elections. The District Association also alleged several irregularities in the management particularly in the matter of selection of teams to represent at State and National level.

( 4 ) THE appellants resisted the application denying all the allegations. Among other things, they stated in the counter that elections were not held after 1978 as there was an injunction by the Court, they were willing to conduct the elections but they could not do so because of the injunction.

( 5 ) BY order dated 30-4-1981 the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court while declining to grant the injunction, appointed a Commissioner to conduct elections observing that both sides were in favour of elections and that the earlier order of the Court granting injunction does not stand in the way of the Commissioner conducting the elections. The lower Court further observed that it is not desirable to have the administration in the hands of the same body for a long period. It is this order that is now challenged before us.

( 6 ) MR. Y. Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellants has raised three contentions:- 1. The petition filed under S 11 of the Act is not maintainable as the dispute is not one falling under any of the categories mentioned in the said section. 2. The Court has no jurisdiction to appoint a Commissioner for holding elections; and 3. There is no dispute within the meaning of S. 11 of the Act. To decide these questions, it is necessary to refer to S. 11 of the Act. Section 11 reads:-"11. Dispute regarding management:- In the event of any dispute arising among the Managing Committee or the members of the Society, in respect of any management or dissolution of the society, any member of the society may file an application in the District Court concerned, and the said Court shall after necessary inquiry pass such order as it shall deem fit. "mr. Y. Sivarama Sastry contends that S. 11 contemplates a dispute among the members of the managing committee i. e. , between the members of the managing committee themselves for among the members of the Society and not a dispute between the members of the managing committee and the members of the Society. In other words any dispute between the members of the Society and the members of the managing committee is outside the scope of S. 11 of the Act. He submits that the dispute in the present case is between the members of the Society on the one hand and the members of the managing committee on the other and therefore S. 11 is not attracted. We are unable to see any force