JUDGMENT : N. NAGARESH, J. The petitioner, who claims to be the State Secretary of the Akhila Kerala Viswakarma Mahasabha, has approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P7 order dated 25.11.2024 issued by the 1 st respondent-Sub Divisional Magistrate. The petitioner also seeks to direct the Sub Divisional Magistrate to handover the office of the Sabha to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner states that he is the State Secretary of the Akhila Kerala Viswakarma Mahasabha. The existing Board members of the Sabha were elected in the election held on 20.04.2014. One Sri.Devadas was the President of the organisation elected in the year 2000. The said Devadas attempted to organise another association by name 'Kerala Viswakarma Sabha' by amalgamating two other organisations functioning within the community. His action was against the interest of the Akhila Kerala Viswakarma Mahasabha. Therefore, the said Devadas was expelled from the post of the President. 3. Expulsion resulted in litigations. In O.S.No.85 of 2008 before the Munsiff Court, Mavelikkara, Sri. Devadas filed a cross objection contending that he was expelled from the post of President in violation of the provisions of the bye- law. In the cross objection, the said Devadas sought reinstatement as the President. The said suit was disposed of by a common judgment. The suits filed by the Sabha were dismissed on the ground that they were filed without taking notice to the members of the Sabha under Order I Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code. However, the cross objection filed by Sri. Devadas was decreed holding that the decision to expel him was illegal and against the provisions of the bye- laws. 4. Though the Sabha filed appeal against Ext.P1 judgment, the appeal was dismissed by the District Court, Mavelikkara. The R.S.A.No.1030 of 2017 filed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.85 of 2008 as confirmed by the District Court, Mavelikkara, is pending consideration before this Court. 5. The petitioner states that Sri. Devadas, after obtaining a decree in his favour, made a claim to manage the Head Office of the Sabha at Chengannur. Pursuant to the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer / Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate, the Head Office of the Sabha was taken over by the police. Devadas filed Crl.R.P.No.1757 of 2016 . 5. The petitioner states that Sri. Devadas, after obtaining a decree in his favour, made a claim to manage the Head Office of the Sabha at Chengannur. Pursuant to the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer / Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate, the Head Office of the Sabha was taken over by the police. Devadas filed Crl.R.P.No.1757 of 2016 . This Court, after considering the facts, held that as Devadas has obtained a decree in his favour, he is entitled to get reinstatement as the President of the Sabha. Ext.P2 is the judgment of this Court in Crl.R.P.No.1757 of 2016 . 6. The petitioner would contend that on 20.04.2014, Sabha conducted a general election and one Mr. Sukumaran Achari was elected as the President and one Mr. Vijayan K Erezha was elected as the General Secretary of the Sabha. The said Devadas contended that he was the President of the Sabha and he is entitled to be the President. He challenged the election held on 20.04.2014. However, in O.S.No.322 of 2016, the learned Munsiff came to the conclusion that the election was held in 2014 and that the election was properly held. There is no reason to invalidate the said election. Devadas filed appeal against the said judgment as A.S.No.82 of 2019. The appeal was however dismissed. Sri. Devadas took up the matter in R.S.A.No.47 of 2022 before this Court. This Court did not grant any stay order, contends the petitioner. 7. The petitioner would submit that having found that the election held on 20.04.2014 was valid and that the claim raised by Sri. Devadas as the President on the basis of election held in the year 2000 is stayed. The claim of Devadas cannot survive anymore. The office building was in the custody of Sri. Devadas. 8. The petitioner states that in the meanwhile, on 29.05.2024, Sri. Devadas passed away. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application for restoration of the Head Office building of the Sabha, as per Ext.P4. Ext.P4 application was not considered by the Revenue Divisional Officer / Sub Divisional Magistrate. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.32408 of 2024. This Court, disposed of the said writ petition as per Ext.P5 judgment dated 12.09.2024 directing the Sub Divisional Magistrate to consider the petitioner and pass orders thereon. Ext.P4 application was not considered by the Revenue Divisional Officer / Sub Divisional Magistrate. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.32408 of 2024. This Court, disposed of the said writ petition as per Ext.P5 judgment dated 12.09.2024 directing the Sub Divisional Magistrate to consider the petitioner and pass orders thereon. The Sub Divisional Magistrate has now passed Ext.P7 order, holding that the petitioner has to approach the civil court for relief sought for by him. It is aggrieved by Ext.P7 that the petitioner has approached this Court. 9. The petitioner would urge that the litigation for right to continue as President was filed by Sri. Devadas in his personal capacity. The deceased Devadas was allowed to hold the office in his personal capacity. The right to hold the post of the President should stand extinguished once Devadas passed away. 10. The petitioner pointed out that in this case, there were subsequent election to the Managing Committee. Those elections were found to be valid by the competent civil court in the proceedings initiated by the deceased Sri. Devadas. Though RSA is pending before this Court, this Court has not granted any interim order. Therefore, there is no subsisting order preventing the Sub Divisional Magistrate from handing over the office premises to the petitioner. The Sub Divisional Magistrate has failed to consider the pleadings of the petitioner and the documents. The Sub Divisional Magistrate ought to have held that the issues raised in the matter are already settled in the civil court and should have ordered to give back the possession of the office premises to the petitioner. 11. The 3 rd respondent resisted the writ petition filing a counter affidavit. The 3 rd respondent submitted that this writ petition is not maintainable either on law or facts. The 3 rd respondent submitted that in the year 2001, there was a proposal for merger of two other organisations with the Akhila Kerala Viswakarma Mahasabha. However, the merger could not take place in view of certain legal intricacies. The Akhila Kerala Viswakarma Mahasabha was registered as a Non- Trading Company, whereas the other two organisations which were proposed to merge with the Sabha were registered under the Societies Registration Act. Therefore, a Special General Body Meeting held on 20.03.2021, unanimously decided to admit the members of the other two organisations to the Akhila Kerala Viswakarma Mahasabha. The Akhila Kerala Viswakarma Mahasabha was registered as a Non- Trading Company, whereas the other two organisations which were proposed to merge with the Sabha were registered under the Societies Registration Act. Therefore, a Special General Body Meeting held on 20.03.2021, unanimously decided to admit the members of the other two organisations to the Akhila Kerala Viswakarma Mahasabha. It was decided to have the name Kerala Viswakarma Sabha for the organisation and to continue to work under the registration granted to the Akhila Kerala Viswakarma Mahasabha. 12. An application was thereafter submitted to change the name of the Akhila Kerala Viswakarma Mahasabha as Kerala Viswakarma Sabha. The I.G of Registration, who is the Registrar of Non-Trading Companies in Kerala, granted approval for the change of the name. The Government has also given consent. However, a writ petition was filed before this Court challenging the sanction granted for change of name. 13. In the meanwhile, few members of a breakaway rebel fraction of the Akhila Kerala Viswakarma Mahasabha filed O.S.Nos.83, 84, 85 and 86 of 2008 against P.R.Devadas. The plaintiffs therein sought to injunct Sri. Devadas and prayed for a declaration against him, contending that Sri. Devadas was trying to form another association in the name of the Kerala Viswakarma Sabha. The Sub Court, by Ext.P1 common judgment dismissed O.S.No.83, 84, 85 and 86 of 2008 as not maintainable. In O.S.No.85 of 2008, Sri. P.R.Devadas had filed a counter claim claiming that he is not legally expelled and he is continuing as the President. The said cross objection was allowed by the Court. 14. The 3 rd respondent further pointed out that Sri. P.R.Devadas was continuing as the President along with his office bearers and was in possession of the Management of the Head Office at Chengannoor. One Sukumaran Achary and Vijayan K. Erezha made a false police complaint to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chengannoor to take proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Due to political influence, the Sub Divisional Magistrate passed order dated 18.10.2016 taking over the possession of the building. Sri. Devadas filed Crl.R.P.No.1757 of 2016 , wherein the order was set aside. There was a direction to handover the possession of the building to Sri. Devadas. 15. The 3 rd respondent contended that while holding the post of the President, Managing Committees were formed and the office premises are under the legally elected Managing Committees. Sri. Devadas filed Crl.R.P.No.1757 of 2016 , wherein the order was set aside. There was a direction to handover the possession of the building to Sri. Devadas. 15. The 3 rd respondent contended that while holding the post of the President, Managing Committees were formed and the office premises are under the legally elected Managing Committees. There is no law and order situation at present. The Sub Divisional Magistrate interfered in the matter when there were law and order issues. It was exercising powers under Section 145 that the interference was made. 16. Now, at this stage, when there is no law and order problem and there is no substantial challenge to the legality of the existing Managing Committee, the Sub Divisional Magistrate cannot exercised powers under Section 145 . It is for the said fact that Ext.P7 order was passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate holding that the petitioner will have to approach the competent civil court for regaining possession of the building if he is entitled. Ext.P7 is not illegal or arbitrary. The petitioner has not made out a case to interfere with Ext.P7. The petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed for. The writ is only to be dismissed, urged the 3 rd respondent. 17. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel assisted by the counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the 3 rd respondent. 18. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P7 order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Ext.P7 order has been passed on an application submitted by Sri. Vijayan K. Erezha wherein the applicant requested the Sub Divisional Magistrate to handover the office building of the Akhila Kerala Viswakarma Mahasabha to the existing Committee. One Sri. Devadas was elected as President of the Sabha in the year 2020. The petitioner submits that the said Devadas was expelled from the post of President for anti organisational activities. Plaints were filed in respect of the dispute within the organisation. 19. In OS No.85/2008 of the Munsiff's Court, Mavelikkara, Sri. Devadas filed a cross objection contending that he was expelled from the organisation alleging anti organisational activities and the expulsion is illegal. By Ext.P1 judgment dated 30.01.2010, the Munsiff's Court decreed that expulsion of Sri. Devadas was illegal and against the provisions of the bye-law. 19. In OS No.85/2008 of the Munsiff's Court, Mavelikkara, Sri. Devadas filed a cross objection contending that he was expelled from the organisation alleging anti organisational activities and the expulsion is illegal. By Ext.P1 judgment dated 30.01.2010, the Munsiff's Court decreed that expulsion of Sri. Devadas was illegal and against the provisions of the bye-law. Appeal filed against Ext.P1 was dismissed by the District Court and RSA No.1030/2017 is pending before this Court. 20. In the meanwhile, the Head Office of the Sabha was taken over by the police invoking the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the basis of the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. In Crl.R.P. No.1757/2016, this Court held that the said Devadas is entitled to get reinstated as President of the Sabha. Devadas passed away on 29.05.2024. Thereupon, application was made to the Sub Divisional Magistrate seeking to handover possession of the office premises to the existing Committee. It is the said application which stands rejected as per Ext.P7 order. 21. In Ext.P7 order, the Sub Divisional Magistrate has held that a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C . is not for the purpose of evicting any person from any land but is primarily concerned with prevention of breach of peace. As there is no law and order issue now, parties claiming possession of the property will have to resort to civil remedies. 22. It is not in dispute that elections to the Managing Committee of the Akhila Kerala Viswakarma Mahasabha is under dispute. Various civil proceedings are pending before Munsiff's Courts and RSAs are pending before this Court. When civil disputes are pending between two factions of the organisation and when the very issue as to which is the Managing Committee entitled to run the affairs of the Sabha is in dispute, any dispute relating to the organisation or its assets will have to be settled through civil proceedings. The Akhila Kerala Viswakarma Mahasabha is an organisation registered as non trading company in Kerala. 23. The contention of the petitioner is that since it is the Sub Divisional Magistrate at whose instance possession of the office premises was given to Devadas, on the demise of the said Devadas, the Sub Divisional Magistrate has to give back possession of the property to the Managing Committee. 23. The contention of the petitioner is that since it is the Sub Divisional Magistrate at whose instance possession of the office premises was given to Devadas, on the demise of the said Devadas, the Sub Divisional Magistrate has to give back possession of the property to the Managing Committee. It is to be noted that which is the legally competent Managing Committee having right over the organisation is itself in dispute. 24. Powers under Section 145 Cr.P.C . are exercised when an Executive Magistrate is satisfied that there exists a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof within his local jurisdiction. The order by which the Head Office premises of the Sabha were taken over, was made when there existed strong likelihood of breach of peace. The office premises were handed over to Sri. Devadas pursuant to a judgment of this Court in Crl.R.P. No.1757/2016. 25. The petitioner has no case that there is any law and order issue now or that the situation prevailing is likely to result in breach of peace. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot aspire the Sub Divisional Magistrate to exercise his powers under Section 145 Cr.P.C . and handover possession of the office building to one of the Committees. If there is no likelihood of breach of peace, the Sub Divisional Magistrate will not be justified in interfering with the matter invoking Section 145 Cr.P.C . The reasons stated by the Sub Divisional Magistrate while passing Ext.P7 order are legal and justifiable. I therefore find no reason to interfere with Ext.P7. The writ petition is hence dismissed. However, it is made clear that parties will be free to approach the civil court for claiming possession of the property in question.