The authority to manage an organization's property must be settled through civil proceedings due to ongoing disputes within the group, with the Sub Divisional Magistrate’s intervention being deemed inappropriate in the absence of a law and order issue.

JUDGMENT :

N. NAGARESH, J.

The petitioner, who claims to be the State Secretary of the Akhila Kerala Viswakarma Mahasabha, has approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P7 order dated 25.11.2024 issued by the 1^st respondent-Sub Divisional Magistrate. The petitioner also seeks to direct the Sub Divisional Magistrate to handover the office of the Sabha to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner states that he is the State Secretary of the Akhila Kerala Viswakarma Mahasabha. The existing Board members of the Sabha were elected in the election held on 20.04.2014. One Sri.Devadas was the President of the organisation elected in the year 2000. The said Devadas attempted to organise another association by name 'Kerala Viswakarma Sabha' by amalgamating two other organisations functioning within the community. His action was against the interest of the Akhila Kerala Viswakarma Mahasabha. Therefore, the said Devadas was expelled from the post of the President.

3. Expulsion resulted in litigations. In O.S.No.85 of 2008 before the Munsiff Court, Mavelikkara, Sri. Devadas filed a cross objection contending that he was expelled from the post of President in violation of the provisions of the bye- law. In the cross objection, the said Devadas sought reinstatement as the President. The said suit was disposed of by a common judgment. The suits filed by the Sabha were dismissed on the ground that they were filed without taking notice to the members of the Sabha under Order I Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code. However, the cross objection filed by Sri. Devadas was decreed holding that the decision to expel him was illegal and against the provisions of the bye- laws.

4. Though the Sabha filed appeal against Ext.P1 judgment, the appeal was dismissed by the District Court, Mavelikkara. The R.S.A.No.1030 of 2017 filed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.85 of 2008 as confirmed by the District Court, Mavelikkara, is pending consideration before this Court.

5. The petitioner states that Sri. Devadas, after obtaining a decree in his favour, made a claim to manage the Head Office of the Sabha at Chengannur. Pursuant to the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer / Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate, the Head Office of the Sabha was taken over by the police. Devadas filed Crl.R.P.No.1757 of 2016 . This Court, after considering the facts, held that as Devadas has obtained a decree in his favour, he is entitled to get reinstatement as the President of the Sabha. Ext.P2 is the judgment of this Court in Crl.R.P.No.1757 of 2016 .

6. The petitioner would contend that on 20.04.2014, Sabha conducted a general election and one Mr. Sukumaran Achari was elected as the President and one Mr. Vijayan K Erezha was elected as the General Secretary of the Sabha. The said Devadas contended that he was the President of the Sabha and he is entitled to be the President. He challenged the election held on 20.04.2014. However, in O.S.No.322 of 2016, the learned Munsiff came to the conclusion that the election was held in 2014 and that the election was properly held. There is no reason to invalidate the said election. Devadas filed appeal against the said judgment as A.S.No.82 of 2019. The appeal was however dismissed. Sri. Devadas took up the matter in R.S.A.No.47 of 2022 before this Court. This Court did not grant any stay order, contends the petitioner.

7. The petitioner would submit that having found that the election held on 20.04.2014 was valid and that the claim raised by Sri. Devadas as the President on the basis of election held in