The approval of the list by the Registrar under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 should be addressed in a civil court and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard Sri. K. Ramakumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri. George Poonthottam, the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents.

2. This writ appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 10.4.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.22114 of 2014. The dispute between the contesting parties in the writ petition was with regard to an election to the managing committee of the Sangham. The petitioners and contesting respondents had claimed rival election to the managing committee and submitted a list of the office bearers to the Registrar of the Society under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. After getting the two lists submitted by both the appellants and the respondents, the Registrar issued notice to the parties and conducted hearing in the matter and subsequently, vide an order dated 16.8.2014, Ext.P9, accepted the list submitted by the respondents on 2.4.2014. Aggrieved by the order of the Registrar, the writ petition was filed by the petitioners/appellants seeking for following reliefs :-

"i) To call for the records leading upto Ext.P9 and quash the same by the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction.

ii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to approve the list of the Managing Committee submitted by the petitioners and allow them to continue as office bearers of the Pulikkal Kawakibunnayyira Sangam which is running the A.M.M.L.P.S. & H.S., Pulikkal in Malappuram district irrespective of the issuance of Ext.P9 order."

3. There were two other writ petitions, namely; W.P.(C) Nos.10162 of 2014 and 13098 of 2014. In W.P.(C) No.10162 of 2014, a direction was sought for to the District Education Officer to issue an order approving the petitioner as the Manager of the school. In W.P.(C) No.13098 of 2014, it is alleged that the petitioner was the duly elected Secretary of the society and the District Registrar, who is bound to approve the same, was not issuing any orders, whereas in W.P.(C) No.22114 of 2014, there was a challenge against the order of the Registrar, Ext.P9. W.P. (C) Nos.10162 of 2014 and 13098 of 2014 had become infructuous as has been submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants. The learned Single Judge observed that it is settled law that a challenge as against the approval of the list by the District Registrar has to be made before a civil court and that the disputed questions cannot be decided in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Making the above observation, the writ petition was dismissed. Various other submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners were noted, but, apart from making observation with regard to some submissions, other questions were not gone into.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge, submits that it was the managing committee represented by the petitioners/ appellants, who have managed the affairs of the Sangham till the fresh list was submitted. It is submitted that the Registrar, without adverting to any relevant facts, had accepted the list submitted by the other side on a flimsy reason. It is submitted that although by registering a list under Section 4 of the Act the Registrar is not required to adjudicate the dispute pertaining to election as an Election Tribunal, being a statutory authority, he has to summarily examine the list and take a decision accordingly. It is submitted that the order of the Registrar shows complete non-application of mind and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that various grounds taken in the writ petition and submissions have not been finally adjudicated. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has upheld the order of the Registrar. It is further submitted that the list was incorrectly approved by the Registrar and the consequent action taken are also bad.

5. Learned counsel appearing