Disputes related to the election or continuance in office of society office bearers, including the validity of executive body extensions and rival elections, fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 24/07/1990 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Varanasi under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, herein after referred to as the Act. The controversy involved in the present case is as to whether the dispute is such which is to be adjudicated by the authority provided under Section 4 or by the Prescribed Authority under S. 25 of the Act.

( 2 ) IT is not disputed that the last elections were held on 27th Nov. 1986 and a duly constituted executive body of the Society came into existence, of which Sri Shamsuddin was elected as Secretary and Mohammad Hasan as President. The term of the executive body in accordance with Rule 8 (h) of the bye -laws of the society is three years and in special case it was liable to be extended for a period not exceeding one year, at a special meeting. It appears, that a set of members of the society conducted fresh election to elect the executive body and claimed to have elected Mohammad Hasan as Secretary and Mohammad Israil as the President on 7/01/1990. A list of the members of the executive body was submitted to the Assistant Registrar, firms societies and chits, as required under the provisions of Section 4 of the Act.

( 3 ) ON the other hand the respondent No. 2 submitted a list of executive body of the society on the basis of meeting held on 3rd Sept. 1989 of the Board of trustees, in which tenure of the governing council was extended for one year. The list of the members of the executive body contained the same names of office bearers which were earlier functioning and of which the respondent No. 2 was the Secretary. The papers of the meeting and the list of the members of the executive body was also submitted to the Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, under Section 4 of the Act.

( 4 ) THUS before the Assistant Registrar there was claim laid down by the two elected executive body in respect of one society. The Assistant Registrar in exercise of the powers under Section 4 of the Act gave opportunity to both the rival claimants and after necessary material was brought on record the Assistant Registrar held that the existing executive body in accordance with Rule 8 (h) of the bye laws has validly extended the term of the executive body and they are liable to be given recognition and the proceedings conducted in the meeting held on 3rd Sept. 1989 are in accordance with the law. In respect of the elections of the rival body held on 9/01/1990 it was held that the meeting of the general body was required to be called by the Secretary who admittedly, did not issue any notice for the meeting which is alleged to have been held on 7/01/1990 and as such the meeting can not be treated to be in accordance with law. The proceedings of the meeting held on 7/01/1990 indicate that two meetings were held and in one meeting some old office bearers were removed and thereafter in the other meeting the election of the governing council took place which is not in accordance with law.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner assailed the aforesaid order mainly on the ground that the present controversy is not covered by the provisions of Section 4 of the Act and it is mainly a dispute in respect of the election covered by the provisions of S. 25 of the Act which is to be adjudicated by the Prescribed Authority. In this case the dispute has not arisen in the context of the submission of the annual list of the managing body, which is required to be filed under Section 4 (i) of the Act but the continuance of the office bearers of the society on the basis of the meeting held on 3/08/1989, according to the requirement of Rule 8 (h) of the bye-laws and the rival elected body which they claimed to have been elected on the basis of elections held on 7/01/1990. The petitioner has disputed not only the list of members of the executive body submitted by respondent No. 2 but has made his rival claim on the basis of