JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Swami Parmanand Dandi Jan Kalyan Samiti, Mangoli Shahbad, Rampur was registered under Societies Registration Act on 20.5.1994 and was renewed from time to time. The tenure of Committee of Management of the Society is three years. The Bye-laws of the society provides that election will be held amongst 2/3rd members of the General Body and that last undisputed election of the Committee of Management of the aforesaid society was held on 5th December, 1998. According to Sri R.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner, next election was due in the year 2001 but as it was not held hence only the Assistant Registrar had the authority to hold the election after the period of three years. 3. He submits that opposite party No. 3 claimed to hold an election on 12.5.2003, in which out of 21 members, 18 members have participated. He also submits that out of aforesaid 18 members said to have been participated in the election on 12.5.2003, eight of them moved an application before the Assistant Registrar alongwith their affidavits on 10.6.2003 inter alia that they had never participated in the said election proceedings on 12.5.2003 though there might be some papers signed by them. 4. It is stated by Sri R.K. Ojha that in view of the above stand by eight members an affidavit including the petitioner that they had not participated in the election proceedings, the election papers submitted by the opposite parties are forged. It is further stated that it is clear from the election proceedings that same has been held without giving notice to the members of the Committee of Management and without publishing any Agenda. 5. He then submits that 31 members had participated in the election of the petitioner, out of which 21 members had caste their votes including 10 newly added members. On basis of this he argues that 11 members had voted in favour of the petitioner whereas in contrast as per claim of respondents only 10 old members have voted in favour of the respondent No. 3. 6. It appears that matter was referred to the Prescribed Authority. Thereafter writ petition No. 56798 of 2003 was filed by respondent No. 3 challenging the order of reference in which initially interim order was granted. 6. It appears that matter was referred to the Prescribed Authority. Thereafter writ petition No. 56798 of 2003 was filed by respondent No. 3 challenging the order of reference in which initially interim order was granted. Thereafter the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 23.7.2005 and the restoration application for recall of aforesaid order was also dismissed vide judgment and order dated 6.2.2007. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the judgment of Division Bench rendered in Appeal No. 38 of 1992; Committee of Management, Audyogik Vikas Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Samiti, Bihara Bazar, Maharajganj, District-Basti decided on 6th May, 1992. The paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 are as under : “1. In the town of Maharajganj within the district of Basti there is a registered society named and styled as Audyogik Vikas Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Samiti which runs a college under the name and style of Audyogik Vikas Inter College. In May, 1956 both Siyaram Singh, the appellant No. 2 and Ambika Prasad Singh, the respondent No. 3 herein, set up rival claims as Secretary-cum-Manager of the society contending that they had been so appointed in the meetings of the society held on May 18 and May 25, 1986 respectively and each of them requested the Assistant Registrar of Societies for renewal of registration of the society in his favour. The said Registrar referred the dispute to the Prescribed Authority (Sub-Divisional Magistrate), Harriya to decide the matter in accordance with Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Act for short) and the latter decided the dispute in favour of the appellant No. 2 by an order dated 18-9-1990, Assailing that order the respondent No. 3 filed a writ petition before a learned Judge of this Court which was allowed and the order of the Prescribed Authority was set aside principally on the ground that the dispute which the Prescribed Authority was required to decide related to an election which was held in May, 1986 and on the date he passed the impugned order the term of the Committee of Management, and for that matter of the Secretary, elected either on 18.5.1986 or on 25.5.1986 had expired in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme of Administration framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 as its maximum life was three years and three months. Besides, the learned Judge noticed, an order had already been issued by the Deputy Director of Education to the District Inspector of Schools to get fresh election conducted. The above judgment of the learned Judge is under challenge in the instant special appeal filed by the Committee of Management of the Society and Siyaram Singh. 2. In challenging the above findings of the learned Judge Dr. Padiya appearing for the appellants submitted that the learned Judge failed to consider that the Committee of Management of the society as constituted under the Act and the Committee of Management of the College as constituted under the Scheme of Administration in accordance with Section 16-A of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, were two distinct and separate bodies and they function for the respective periods prescribed thereunder. In elaborating his contention, Dr. Padiya urged that under the Act a Committee of Management of the Society had a minimum life of five years while under the Scheme of Administration the life of the Committee of Management for the College had maximum life of three years and three months. Consequently, Dr. Padiya submitted, the expiry of the term of the Committee of Management of the College after the period of three years and three months did not mean that the term of the Committee of Management of the Society also expired and in fact, according to Dr. Padiya, the Committee of Management of the Society in question continued to remain valid. On this score alone, according to Dr. Padiya, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 3. Undoubtedly, under the Act a committee of management can be and is framed to manage the affairs of the Society and the said committee is to manage the affairs of the society for a period as specified in its Rules. Bye-laws or Regulations, as the case may be. Similarly a Committee of Management is required to be constituted under the Scheme of Administration under Section 16-A of the U.P. Intermediate Eduction Act, 1921 and it is this Committee of Management which has to be formed under the Scheme of Administration will have to manage the affairs of the College. That necessarily means that the Committees so constituted under different statutes have separate identities and separate duties to perform depending upon the nature and extent of activities of the Society.” 8. That necessarily means that the Committees so constituted under different statutes have separate identities and separate duties to perform depending upon the nature and extent of activities of the Society.” 8. On the basis of the aforesaid paragraphs, he submits that the Court was of the view that after expiry of term of Committee of Management of the society became functus-officio as such election cannot be held by an infructuous society. 9. Per contra Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that elections were held on 12.5.2003 and that the language of Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act is different from Section 4 under the provision of Intermediate Education Act, 1921. He further submits that for this reason the election held on 12.5.2003 till the election of Committee of Management even after expiry of period of three years from last election will not make the Committee of Management of the society of respondent No. 3 functus-officio and in any case the election of the respondent Committee having been recognized and it being in office managing the affairs is liable to continue upto 12.5.2009. He has relied upon the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Shahbad, District-Rampur on 15.11.2008 wherein it has been held that 10 newly added members were not valid members and that 21 members of the Committee of Management have given affidavits in favour of the respondent Committee of Management. He has relied upon the judgment rendered in 2000(1) UPLBEC 777 , Committee of Management, A.K. College, Shikohabad, District Firozabad and another v. State of U.P. and others in which it has been held that Committee of Management does not become functus officio after expiry of term given in the bye-laws/Scheme of Administration within which election may be held. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record as well as provisions of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act I am of the view that there are disputed question of fact regarding validity of election as well as validity of members, who are said to have participated and voted in the election. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record as well as provisions of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act I am of the view that there are disputed question of fact regarding validity of election as well as validity of members, who are said to have participated and voted in the election. Section 25 provides that the Prescribed Authority may, on a reference made to it by the Registrar by at least 1/4th of the members of a society registered in Uttar Pradesh, hear and decide in a summary manner any doubt or dispute in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office-bearer of such society, and may also pass such order in respect thereof as it deems fit and sub-section (2) whereby an order made under sub-section (1), an election is set aside or an office-bearer is held no longer entitled to continue in office or where the Registrar is satisfied that any election of office-bearers of a society has not been held within the time specified in the rules of that society, he may call a meeting of the general body of such society for electing such office-bearer or office-bearers. 11. It has been held in 1978 A.L.J. 678 that all the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 are being summary in nature and are subject to suit proceeding. The disputed question of facts are involved in this petition, which requires adjudication on the basis of oral and documentary evidence. Section 25 deals with disputes regarding challenge to the eviction of office-bearers. It cannot be said that it takes away the right of the members of the society to claim relief otherwise outside the purview of Section 25 on the basis of their right to seek remedy for their grievance, Section 25 would not thus be a bar to a suit before civil Court challenging election of Managing Committee and other elected officers and for rendition of accounts. 12. For all the reasons aforesaid and in view of the law stated above, the Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter in its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution at this stage. 13. The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of efficacious and alternative remedy available to the petitioner. ————