JUDGMENT The Junior Bar Association (Puratan), Pratapgarh is an Association registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 ("the Act"). An election for constituting the committee of management of the Association was held on 30 October 2013. A writ petition was filed before this Court by one Alok Kumar Singh against the Bar Council of U.P. (Misc. Bench No. 10565 of 2013). A Division Bench of this Court in an order dated 13 November 2013 observed that no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution was made out and if the petitioner presents his case before the State Bar Council, it would be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law. Following the order passed by the Division Bench, the State Bar Council assumed jurisdiction and has passed an order dated 8 June 2014 setting aside the election which was held on 30 October 2013 and directing the constitution of an Elders' Committee to hold a fresh election. 2. The assumption of jurisdiction by the State Bar Council is questioned in these proceedings on the ground that the Association is a society registered under the Act. Hence, any dispute in regard to the conduct of elections would be governed under the mechanism provided in the Act. 3. During the course of the hearing, we enquired from the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent, the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, whether the second respondent is in a position to sustain the impugned order with reference to any provision of the Statute or subordinate legislation, authorising the State Bar Council to enquire into the validity of the elections held by a Bar Association constituted under the Act. No such provision has been pointed out before the Court. Once the first petitioner is constituted as a society registered under the Act, which is not in dispute, the provisions of the Act including Section 25 providing for a comprehensive remedy for questioning the result of election would apply and the second respondent cannot assume jurisdiction unless it is conferred by a specific provision of law. The State Bar Council may have the jurisdiction to recognize a Bar Association but the validity of an election held could not have been adjudicated upon particularly in the presence of a specific statutory remedy provided under the Act. 4. The State Bar Council may have the jurisdiction to recognize a Bar Association but the validity of an election held could not have been adjudicated upon particularly in the presence of a specific statutory remedy provided under the Act. 4. For these reasons, we have come to the conclusion that the impugned orders passed by the State Bar Council on 8 June 2014 and on 25 June 2014 are unsustainable. Both the orders are quashed. The petition is, accordingly, allowed. 5. We, however, clarify that since we have allowed the petition only on the ground of the absence of jurisdiction in the second respondent,we have not made any observation in regard to the validity of the election and any aggrieved person would be at liberty to challenge the elections before the appropriate forum.