A writ of quo warranto does not lie to domestic tribunals as their jurisdiction is founded on a contract between the members and the proper remedy for an aggrieved party is to file a suit.

1. In this case the petitioner Sri Sukhdeo Choudhary who is Vice-President of the Jamalpur Arya Samaj has moved this Court for issue of a writ in the nature of a QUO warranto against the members of the opposite party calling upon them, to show cause under what authority they held their offices in the Bihar Rajya Arya Pratinidhi Sabha. The petitioner has also prayed that a writ should be issued cancelling the election of the Working Committee of the Bihar Rajya Arya Pratinidhi Sabha held on 9-8-1953 and also cancelling the order of supersession of the Jamalpur Arya Samaj by the President of the Bihar Rajya Arya Pratinidhi Sabha.

2. The case of the petitioner is that on 28-7-1903 the President of the State Sabha made an order that the Jamalpur should be superseded for sis months. It appears that the annual convention and the election of office bearers and members of the Working Committee was fixed for 9-8-1953. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Jamalpur Arya Samaj could not send its representation, at the annual convention or take part in the voting of the election for the members of the Working Committee. It is alleged on behalf of the petitioner in the first place that the. order of supersession was passed by the President without giving notice to the Jamalpur branch. It. was contended in the second place that no approval of the Working Committee was previously granted to the President for making the order of supersession. It is said that on this ground also the order of supersession dated 28-7-1953 is an. order without jurisdiction.

3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties. In para 10 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that on 29-0-1953 the Working Committee had considered the whole matter relating to the affairs of tne Jamalpur branch and passed a resolution appointing a Commission to go to Jamaipur ana make full enquiry and submit a report to the President within three weeks, The resolution also gave full authority to the President to take such steps in relation to the Jamal-par Arya Samaj as he thought fit after receiving the report of the Commission. In paragraph 12 it is said that the members of the Commission, proceeded to Jainaipur but the opposite parly re-fused to give any opportunity to the Commission to examine the records or the papers of the Jamal-pur branch and indeed ordered the members of the Commission to get out of the Arya Samaj premises. The Commission made a report to the, President, Dr. Dukhan Ram, on these matters, and upon a consideration of the report the President decided to suspend the Jamaipur branch., for a period of six months. In para. 14 of the counter-affidavit it is alleged that the Working-Committee passed a resolution on 8-3-1963 unanimously approving the action of the President. On behalf of the opposite parties, therefore, the conteation is that there is no substance in the application made on benaif of the petitioner and it was pointed out in the first place that opportunity was given to the Jamalpur branch to put, forward its claim but the Jamalpur branch rejected this opportunity and asked the members of the Commission to go out of the premises of the Arya Samaj. On the question of the authority of the President to take action with regard to suspension of the Jamaipur branch the petitioner relied upon Rule 45 of the Constitution oi the Arya Samaj which states--

"In the event cf gross and continued disregard, of any order or decision of the Provincial Sabha by a local Samaj or in the event of such mismanagement in a local Samaj as would be detrimental to the Samaj in tne opinion of the Provincial Society, the President of the Provincial Society with the approval cf his Antranga Sabha will be competent to suspend the constitution of such local samaj for a fixed period and to make proper arrangements for the management of that Samaj and the institutions under the control of that Samaj".

4. The complaint of the petitioner was that the pre