The court established the principle that the Registrar has the power to resolve disputes regarding the list of governing body members under S.4 of the Societies Registration Act.

S. Sankarasubban, J.

This Writ Appeal has been filed by the additional fourth respondent in O.P. No. 9323/90. The (Original Petition was filed by A.P. Aboobacker Musaliar, who is the first respondent in the appeal. The Original Petition was filed challenging Ext. P3 proceedings passed by the District Registrar (General), Kozhikode.

2. The appellant is the General Secretary of the Samastha Kerala Jem-eyyathul Ulama (hereinafter referred to as 'the samastha' ). The Samastha had its genesis as an unregistered organisation of Muslim Religious Pundits in Kerala constituted in 1925 for the purpose of diffusion of religious teachings to the Sunni Muslims in Kerala and outside. The organisation was later registered under the Societies Registration Act and the registration number is 5-1/1934-35.

3. The objects of the 'Samastha' is contained in the Memorandum of Association and the Rules and Regulations. The Apex Body of the Samastha is a body of 40 persons, who have deep knowledge in religious studies elected by the General Committee, which is known as 'Musavara'. The 'Musavara is originally elected by the General Committee from the persons who are highly qualified in religious learning and is almost a permanent body. The vacancies in the Musavara are filled up by the General Committee on the recommendation of the Musavara. No election of Musavara members is prescribed to be conducted regularly or periodically.

4. The second respondent in the Original Petition, E.K. Aboobacker Musaliyar was the General Secretary of the Samastha in the year 1956 and continued till his death in 1996. The petitioner in the Original Petition was a member of the Musavara. By the end of 1988, according to the appellant, there was an attempt for revolt in the Samastha engineered by the petitioner and his henchmen. In 1989, the petitioner and his henchmen failed in their attempt through courts. Thereafter, they convened meetings of their faction and began to make false claim of constituting separate Samastha and separate establishments. When the activities of the petitioner and his henchmen were against the interest of the Samastha, the matter was considered in the meeting of the Musavara held on 18.2.1989. The petitioner and five others were expelled from the Musavara. According to the petitioner, the Musavara that was in existence till 1989, was not a properly elected group of representatives. In the general body meeting held on 5.3.1989, 40 members were elected and constituted a Musavara of the Samastha. Again in December, 1989 the general body met and elected the very same persons for the year 1991. The petitioner was elected as the Secretary.

5. In terms of S.4 of the Societies Registration Act, the petitioner as the Secretary of the General Committee, submitted a list of Musavara of Samastha for the year 1990-91 before the first respondent on 1.1.1990. which is produced as Ext. P1 in the Original Petition. According to the second respondent, he was the competent person to convene the general body meeting and he did not call any meeting on 5.3.1989. He further submitted that since already Musavara is in existence, there was no question of election of a new Musavara. The second respondent also denied that the petitioner was elected as Secretary. He further contended that ever since the registration of 'the Samastha in 1934, the list of Musavara members was furnished to the first respondent under S.4 of the Societies Registration Act. According to him, for the year 1990, he submitted Ext. P2 list on 6.1.1990. There were 37 members in Ext. P2 list. 3 vacancies in the Musavara were not recommended by the Musavara and hence not filled up by the General Committee. Thus, the first respondent had two lists before him, viz., Exts. P1 and P2. The first respondent Registrar called for both the parties and after scrutiny, accepted Ext. P2 list by his proceedings, Ext. P3. It is Ext. P3 that was challenged before the learned single Judge. The learned single jud