JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - The aims and objects of the Indian Red Cross Society are mainly to provide aid to sick and wounded members of the Armed Forces of the Union and to demobilised, sick and wounded members of the Armed Forces of the Union, Materinity of child welfare, nursing and ambulance work and many other things provided in the First Schedule to the Act No.15 of 1920. The allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the writ petition have been admitted vide paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit of Sri S.B. Lall, opposite party No. 4, in the present writ petition. Aggrieved by the conduct of opposite party No. 3 Sri Gopi Nath Dixit, the then Health Minister-Ex-Officer Vice President of the Indian Red Cross Society, U.P. State Branch,. Lucknow and Sri Shyam Behari Lall Honorary Secretary of the Indian Red Cross Society U.P. State Branch, Lucknow, the petitioners have approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution and have prayed for the following main reliefs. " 1. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent Nos.6 and 7 not to honour any cheque, bank draft or transact in itself in any manner whatsoever relating to the accounts of India Red Cross Society U.P. State Branch under the signatures of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 either singly or jointly without signature of Begam K. Aizaz Rasul Hon. Treasurer of the society. 2. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent Nos. 3 and 4 not to operate any account belonging to Indian Red Cross Society U.P. Branch in respondents Nos. 6 and 7 either singly or jointly without the signature of Begam K. Aizaz Rasul, Hony. Treasurer of the society. 3. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 2 president of the society to call the meeting of the presently existing Managing Committee of the U.P. State Branch of the Indian Red Cross Society immediately to save the interest of the society as per rules of the society. The other reliefs are not necessary to be mentioned. 2. During the course of argument, it has been brought to our notice that the term of Treasurer, namely, Begum K. Aizaz Rasul came to a an end in the pear 1989 and a new Treasurer has been appointed. The other reliefs are not necessary to be mentioned. 2. During the course of argument, it has been brought to our notice that the term of Treasurer, namely, Begum K. Aizaz Rasul came to a an end in the pear 1989 and a new Treasurer has been appointed. Relevant allegations, have been made in paragraph 14 of the writ petition, and paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit. In rejoinder affidavit vide paragraph 38 A it has been stated that Begam K.Aizaz Rasul is still continuing as Treasurer of the Indian Red Cross Society U.P. State Branch. In our opinion a disputed question of fact arises in the present case as to whether Begam K. Aizaz Rasul is really a Treasurer of the Society at present. This question is difficult to be decided merely on the basis of the affidavits. The main relief claimed at item Nos. 1 and 2 in the writ petition, cannot be granted to the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the present case unless the disputed question is decided by a competent court as to whether Begam K.Aizaz Rasul is at present Honerary Treasurer of the Society. It is well known by now that the proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution are of summary nature and are not suitable for adjudication of disputed questions of fact. The question raised by the petitioners in the present case cannot be conveniently determined in summary proceedings in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution. In this connection the rulings reported in Raja Ram v. State (A.I.R.1958 Allahabad 141), M/s. Simbhaoli Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P. (AIR 1959 Allahabad 369) and Ganga Pd. Shyam Prasad Gupta v. The Town Area Committee, Achhalda, district Etawah (1982 U.P.L.B.E.C 190. Head note B paragraphs 4 and 5 may be perused. It is also well known that the subsequent events can be taken note of during the pendency of the writ petition. According to recent election in the State, opposite party No. 3 Sri Gopi Nath Dixit is no more Health Minister as he has lost the election. Therefore, the cause of action against opposite party No. 3 does not servive. To our mind the petitioners cannot get the relief claimed at item Nos. 1 and 2 in the present writ petition. 3. Therefore, the cause of action against opposite party No. 3 does not servive. To our mind the petitioners cannot get the relief claimed at item Nos. 1 and 2 in the present writ petition. 3. The bare perusal of the writ petition counter affidavit and the rejoinder affidavit indicates that there are allegations and counter allegations about the conduct of the petitioner No. 1 and opposit parties Nos. 3 and 4 which can better be appreciated after examining oral evidence led by the parties in a competent proceeding. Therefore, we think that it is not a fit case where the petitioners can get relief under Article 226 of the Constitution without taking recourse to proceedings before a competent court which may deal with the questions of facts effectively. 4. As regards the third prayer, mentioned in the writ petition and noted at page 2 of this judgment, it is noteworthy that the petitioners' counsel was unable to apprise us as to when the last election took place and whether the petitioners are members of the existing Managing Committee of the U.P. State Branch of the Indian Red Cross Society. Paragraph 15 of annexure'9' attached with the writ petition indicates that the period of members of the Managing Committee is only three years. Therefore, again a disputed question of fact emerges in the case for the grant of relief no.3 claimed in the writ petition. We have already indicated above that the disputed question of fact cannot be conveniently determined in these summary proceedings. 5. In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition involving disputed questions of fact and we think that exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners would not be sound exercise of discretion. 6. In the result, the writ petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed. Stay order dated 3.10.1989 is hereby vacated with the dismissal of the writ petition. We make no order as to costs.