ORDER R.A. Sharma, J. - Certain persons having faith in Arya Samaj Discipline established Arya Samaj Mandir Baldeo Ashram, Khurja (herein-after referred to as Arya Samaj). Arya Samaj is not a registered society but has about 200 members. The members of Arya Samaj however, in 1936 got a society known as Arya Kanya Pathshala Association. Khurja, Bulandshahar (hereinafter referred to as Association) registered under the Societies Registration Act. The association was initially having 8 members but later on membership was increased to 12 and at present there are 12 members of the Association. The Association has its own memorandum of Association and Rules, which have been filed as Annexure I to the writ petition. Rule 3 of the Rules vests administration of the Association in its managing committee consisting of not less than 7 members and th of these members are required to be the members of Arya Samaj and the remaining th are to be Hindus other than members of the Arya Samaj. 2. Election of the managing committe of the Association was held on 9-12-1984 and as the term of the committee of management is three years, election was again held on 6-12-1987 and according to the petitioners the election has again been held on 4-12-1990 in which Krishna Lal Wadhwa has been elected as the manager of the Association. It appears that on 26-10-1986. 52 members of the Arya Samaj held a meeting in which 9 members of the Committee of Management of the Association were removed and in their place a new committee of management of the Association is said to have been constituted with 9 new members of the Arya Samaj and Sri Rajendra Mittal is claimed to have been elected as the manager of the Association. On the basis of this election held on 26-10-86 respondents-set up a paralled committee of management of the Association. Ultimately, the Assistant Registrar. Meerut vide his order dated 6-5-1988 referred the dispute pertaining to the office bearers of the Society (Association) under S. 25 of the Societies Registration Act to the Sub-Divisional Officer/Prescribed Authority for decision. The Sub-Divisional Officer has by its order dated 12-11-1990 decided the dispute by upholding the election said to have been held by the respondents on 26-10-1986 and thereby rejected the claim of the petitioners. The Sub-Divisional Officer has by its order dated 12-11-1990 decided the dispute by upholding the election said to have been held by the respondents on 26-10-1986 and thereby rejected the claim of the petitioners. The Prescribed Authority by the impugned order has held that although the managing committee of the Association has the administrative power but it has no right to fill in the vacancy or remove the member and this power belongs to Arya Samaj inasmuch as Arya Samaj is the general body of the Association on account of which Arya Samaj has full power to remove and replace any member and the resolution passed by it on 26-10-1986, whereby 9 members of the committee to management of the Association were removed and they were substituted by new 9 members was valid and the new committee of management was validly constituted on the aforesaid date. It is against the aforesaid order dated 12-11-1990, which has been filed as Annexure VIII to the writ petition, that writ petition has been filed by the petitioners. 3. At the admission stage respondents have filed counter affidavit and the petitioners have filed rejoinder affidavit in reply thereto. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No. 2 as well as the learned Standing counsel and the writ petition is being disposed of in accordance with the Rules of the Court. 4. Rule 3 of the Rules of the Association, which provides for constitution of committee of management is quoted below : "3. The administration of the society shall be vested in a Managing Committee consisting of not less than seven members who will be considered as life members of the society and they shall be in proportion of :- Three-fourth of the members of the society shall be the members of the Arya Samaj, Khurja and the one fourth members shall be the other Hindu citizens being interested in female education and elected by the Arya Samaj Khurja." Rule 15, which deals with the removal of a member of the committee of management and Rule 16, which provides for filling of casual vacancy, being relevant are also quoted below : "15. A member of the society shall be liable to be removed from membership by the managing committee by the majority of three fourths of its members approved by the Arya Samaj, Khurja. A member of the society shall be liable to be removed from membership by the managing committee by the majority of three fourths of its members approved by the Arya Samaj, Khurja. (a) If he acts against the interest of the society; or (b) If he becomes of unsound mind, or (c) If he is convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude; or (d) If he permanently leaves Khurja and shifts to other districts, or (e) If he remains no more members of the Arya Samaj; or (f) If he does not attend six consecutive meetings of the association. 16. In case of vacancy caused by death, removal or resignation of any member, it shall be filled up by the Arya Samaj, Khurja on the recommendation of the remaining members of the society." 5. It is true that in the committee of management of the Association th members are required to be the members of the Arya Samaj and only remaining th members can be other than the members of Arya Samaj. The membership of Arya Samaj is the essential eligibility condition and a person, who is not a member of Arya Samaj, cannot become a member of the committee of management of the Association in the th quota of the total membership of the committee. Although the membership of Arya Samaj is condition precedent for membership of the committee of management of the Association but after such a member has become a member of the committee of management of the Association, he does not loose the membership of the Association automatically on the cessation of his membership of Arya Sanaj, because Rule 15(e) gives the power to the committee of management of the Association to remove a person, who has ceased to be a member of Arya Samaj, by the majority of th of its members subject to the approval of Arya Samaj. Power of removal of its member, who has ceased to be a member of Arya Samaj, vests in the committee of management of the Association subject to the approval of Arya Samaj. Such a power does not belong to the Arya Samaj although it is an approving authority and the power, as mentioned above, to remove a member of the committee is in the committee of management. Such a power does not belong to the Arya Samaj although it is an approving authority and the power, as mentioned above, to remove a member of the committee is in the committee of management. The finding of the Prescribed Authority in the impugned order to the effect that power to remove a member of the committee of management of the Association belongs to Arya Samaj and not to the committee of management is contrary to the Rules referred to above and cannot be sustained. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that, membership of Arya Samaj being eligibility condition for th members of the committee of management of the Association, if any of these members ceased to be the members of Arya Samaj, he automatically ceases to be the member of the committee of management of the Association and on this basis it has been urged that as the 9 members of the committee were removed by the Arya Smaj on 26-10-1986 they ceased to be the members of the committee of management of the Association and Arya Samaj was fully justified to reconstitute the committee of management on 26-10-1986 with 9 new members. It is not possible to agree with the learned counsel for the respondents. 7. When rules provide for removal of members by a resolution/order, principle of automatic cessation of membership stands excluded. In the case of Mool Chand Sharma v. State of U.P., AIR 1967 SC 112 : (1962 All LJ 381) certain members of the Municipal Board had signed the notice of motion of no confidence against the President and had taken part in the proceedings on which the motion was adopted, although they had incurred disqualification under Sec. 13D of the Municipalities Act, The resolution adopting the motion of no confidence against the President was challenged on the ground that some of the members, who had signed the notice and had participated in the meeting were not qualified and ceased to be the members of the Municipal Board as they had incurred disqualification of membership. The Supreme Court repelled the aforesaid submission on the ground that as Sec. 40 of the U.P. Municipalities Act empowers the Government to remove a member of the Municipal Board, who has incurred a disqualification under See. 13D of the aforesaid Act, the principle of automatic cessation of membership cannot he applied. The Supreme Court repelled the aforesaid submission on the ground that as Sec. 40 of the U.P. Municipalities Act empowers the Government to remove a member of the Municipal Board, who has incurred a disqualification under See. 13D of the aforesaid Act, the principle of automatic cessation of membership cannot he applied. Relevant passage of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court is quoted below at page 114 of AIR : "There is nothing in S. 13D or in any other section of the Act which provides for the suspension or cessation from membership of a duly elected member on his incurring any of the disqualifications under S. 13D. On the other hand, the provisions of S. 40 of the Act lead to the inference that a member incurring such a disqualification, continues to be entitled to take part in any proceedings of the board or to perform the duties of a member. Sec. 40 deals with the removal of members and empowers the State Government in the case of a city or the Prescribed Authority in any other case to remove a member of the Board on any of the grounds mentioned in cls. (a) to (f) of Sub-s. (1). xxx xxx xxx xxx at Page 115 of AIR "We are therefore of opinion that a member of the Municipal Board does not automatically come under suspension or lose his right to take part in the proceedings of the Board or perform the duties of a member or cease to be a member of the board merely on his incurring any of the disqualification mentioned in S. 13D. 8. In Co-operative Federation v. State of U.P., AIR 1973 SC 1068 , same principles were reiterated by Supreme Court. In this case before coming into force of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, District Co-operative Banks were members but after the enforcement of the Act the membership was confined to two classes only, namely, District Co-operative Federation and the Marketing Society with the result District Co-operative Banks were not eligible to be the members. In this case before coming into force of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, District Co-operative Banks were members but after the enforcement of the Act the membership was confined to two classes only, namely, District Co-operative Federation and the Marketing Society with the result District Co-operative Banks were not eligible to be the members. S. 27 of the Act empowered the Registrar to remove or expel a member and Rule 56 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968 laid down that a person can be removed from the membership of the society, if he was ceased to fulfil the qualification or his membership is inconsistent with the provisions of some other rules by resolution of the committee of management after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard. As there were specific provisions providing for removal of a member, Supreme Court declared that in these circumstances principle of automatice termination of membership will not apply. Relevant extract from this judgment is extracted below : The provisions in the Act and the Rules indicate that the removal can only be under a resolution. There is no provision for automatic cessation of membership. In the absence of a resolution there is no valid removal of co-operative bank from membership." 9. In the instant case clause (e) of Rule 15 expressly empowers the committee of management of Association to remove a member, who has ceased to be a member of Arya Samaj by a resolution passed by th of its members subject to the approval of Arya Samaj. There being specific provision in the Rules for removal of a member on the ground of his termination of the membership of Arya Samaj, the principle of automatic cessation cannot be applied. Till the committee of management passes such a resolution, such a members will continue to be the member of the Association and Arya Samaj has no legal authority to remove him. Order of the Prescribed Authority, being based on misinterpretation of the rules of the Society is liable to be set aside. 10. As the controversy involved in this writ petition does not relate to disputed questions of facts and parties have exchanged affidavits, it is not proper to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy of suit. Order of the Prescribed Authority, being based on misinterpretation of the rules of the Society is liable to be set aside. 10. As the controversy involved in this writ petition does not relate to disputed questions of facts and parties have exchanged affidavits, it is not proper to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy of suit. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, argument of the learned counsel for the contesting respondents to the effect that writ petition should not be entertained as the petitioner has an alternative remedy of civil suit, cannot be accepted. 11. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs and the impugned order of the Prescribed Authority dated 12-11-1990 is quashed.