By the Court.—This special appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 18566 of 2006 dated 04/4/2006.

2. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are Madarsa Jamya Ahley Sunnat Emdadul Ulum, Matehna, Post Khadsari Bazar District Siddhartha Nagar is a society duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter called the "Act 1860"). Elections of the office bearers of the society are stated to have taken place in the year 2000. Proceedings under Section 25(1) of the Act, 1860 were initiated by respondents 4 to 58 questioning the elections so held before the Prescribed Authority. The dispute was registered as Misc. Case No. 17 of 2001. During the pendency of the dispute, the term of the office bearers expired on 09/10/2005. Prior to the expiry of the term of the office bearers of the society, fresh elections are said to have taken place on 25/9/2005. On the strength of the elections so held the appellant-petitioner submitted an application dated 06/10/2005 before the Assistant Registrar Firms Societies and Chits Gorakhpur Region Gorakhpur seeking renewal of the registration of the society. In the meantime the Prescribed Authority by means of his order dated 17/3/2006 answered the reference under Section 25(1) of the Act 1860 and directed that a copy of the order along with the relevant file be transmitted to the Assistant Registrar Firms Societies and Chits Gorakhpur for appropriate action. Against this order of the Prescribed Authority the appellant who claims to be the Manager of the Committee of Management of the Madarsa filed Writ Petition No. 18566 of 2006. The learned Single Judge by means of his judgment and order dated 04/4/2006 dismissed the writ petition after recording that it raises disputed questions of fact and it is not feasible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to decide such disputed issues of fact. Accordingly the writ petition has been dismissed with the liberty to the petitioner-appellant to approach the Civil Court. It is against this order that the present special appeal has been filed.

3. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of respondents by Shri R.K. Ojha, Advocate to the effect that the present special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 is not maintainable inasmuch as the Prescribed Authority, who has decided the dispute under Section 25(1) of the Act 1860, acts as a Tribunal, having trappings of the Court and therefore, this Special Appeal against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge arising out of the proceedings from an order of the Tribunal is legally maintainable in view of the language of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules 1952. In support of the said submission reliance has been placed upon the Division Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Jai Prakash Agarwal v. Prescribed Authority (Sub-Divisional Magistrate),Sadar, District Deoria and others, (1999) 1 UPLBEC 697.

4. The preliminary objection raised on behalf of the appellant is answered by Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Smt. Anita Tripathi contending that the Division Bench judgment relied upon by Shri R.K. Ojha in the case of Jai Prakash Agarwal (supra) does not lay down the correct law. With reference to the Full Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Committee of Management, Shri Kashi Raj Mahavidyalaya, Aurai and another v. Deputy Director of Education, Vth Region, Varanasi and others, 1997 (29) ALR 417, Shri Khare submits that the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act 1860 cannot be treated to be a Tribunal for the following reasons :

(a) The proceedings before the Prescribed Authority are summary in nature, the order passed therein is not final in as much as it has specifically been held by the Honble Supreme Court that the order of the Prescribed Authority can always be questioned by way of civil suit.

(b