JUDGMENT K.N. Goyal, J. - This petition is directed against an order of the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. The Society was registered in April 1979. Thereafter, according to the petitioners, an election was held in December 1981, while, according to the oppositeparties 3 and 4, the valid election was held only in June 1982. On account of the dispute in this regard having arisen before the Registrar, the matter was referred to the Prescribed Authority under the said Section 25. The Prescribed Authority has held that the election at which the petitioners were declared elected in December 1981 was invalid. Aggrieved thereby the petitioners have come to this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 2. Learned Counsel for the oppositeparties have raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the petitioners had an alternative remedy of suit as the decision, of the Prescribed Authority is not final as held in Prabhat Misra Vs. Jai Shankar Tripathi, 1978 ALJ 672. Of course, the decision of the Prescribed Authority is of a summary nature, and a civil suit may not be barred. But when the prescribed term of the Committee of Management is itself three years and more than three years have passed since the alleged election at which the petitioners were elected, there is no justification now for relegating the petitioners to the alternative remedy of civil suit. 3. The Prescribed Authority has based its order on two grounds, Firstly, the election was held before the expiry of the term of the original Committee. The authority has taken the view that the election could be held only after the expiry of the term. This view seems clearly unwarranted. There is nothing in the byelaws of the Society to indicate that election should take place only after the expiry of the term. Normally an election to any body should be completed before the expiry of the term so that the new body may assume office immediately after the expiry of the term of the outgoing body. 4. Learned Counsel for the oppositeparties has pointed out in this connection that in the resolution of December 1981, through another resolution passed on the same day on which the alleged election took place, it was also decided that the new body should take office and discharge duties. 4. Learned Counsel for the oppositeparties has pointed out in this connection that in the resolution of December 1981, through another resolution passed on the same day on which the alleged election took place, it was also decided that the new body should take office and discharge duties. From this it is inferred that the election was to take effect immediately even though the term of the old body had not expired. Even if this separate resolution be invalid, that invalidity could not affect the legality of the election which was the subjectmatter of another resolution. 5. The other ground taken by the Prescribed Authority for holding the election dated 131281 to be bad in law was that notice for the meeting of the general body was issued over the signature of the President and not of the Secretary. A perusal of the byelaws shows that the byelaws are silent on the question as to who is to issue notice for meeting of the general body. There is no doubt a provision that for meeting of the executive body notices should be issued over the signature of the Secretary or in his absence, of the Joint Secretary. This provision cannot be applied, on the basis of mere analogy, to notices for meetings of the general body. In the absence of any specific provision in this behalf the notice for the meeting cannot be held to be invalid merely because it was issued over the signature of the President and not over the signature of the Secretary. 6. In this view of the matter, the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 101084, annexure 9, cannot be sustained. 7. It is, however, to be noted that it is a matter of dispute as to which of the rival claimants is actually running the affairs of the body. More than three years have already passed since 131281 and a little less than three years have passed since 30th June, 1982, the date on which the oppositeparties claim to have been elected. In view of the passage of time and the need to end the state of uncertainty it has been fairly agreed before me by the learned Counsel for the parties that a fresh election may be directed to be held under the auspices of the Registrar under Section 25 (2) of the Act. In view of the passage of time and the need to end the state of uncertainty it has been fairly agreed before me by the learned Counsel for the parties that a fresh election may be directed to be held under the auspices of the Registrar under Section 25 (2) of the Act. The Registrar shall take necessary steps including verification of membership. He may either hold the election himself or depute any other officer for the purpose, and in case any such officer is authorized by him, the officer so authorised may verify the membership of the general body. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, and the order dated 101084, annexure, 9, is hereby quashed. It is further directed that the Registrar shall hold a fresh election at an early date as mentioned above. No order is made as to costs. 9. A copy of the judgment shall be delivered to the parties' counsel on payment of necessary charges within a week. (Petition allowed)