R.R.K. Trivedi, J.
1. Jai Prakash Agarwal, respondent No. 4 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33181 of 1998 has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 23rd October. 1998, passed by the single Judge by which he stayed the operation of the order dated 29.9.1998, passed by the prescribed authority, respondent No. 1. At the time of admission/hearing of this appeal, learned counsel for the respondents raised preliminary objection on 29th October. 1998 against the maintainability of the appeal. It was submitted that as prescribed authority by his order decided the dispute of election as a tribunal between the parties, which was subject-matter of challenge in the writ petition, from orders passed in such a writ petition, special appeal under .Chapter VIII. Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, is not legally maintainable. Considering the preliminary objection, we gave time to the learned counsel for the parties and fixed 30th October. 1998 for hearing on this preliminary objection.
2. We have heard Sri. R. N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate for appellant and Sri A. C. Tirpath, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 and learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
3. Facts giving rise to this petition are that Ghanshyam Dass Sigatia Arya Trust. Deoria. Is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. 1860 and its registration number is 402 of 1946-47. A dispute was raised on 28.12.97 before the Assistant Registrar. Firms. Societies and Chits, U. P.. Gorakhpur in connection with the functioning of Trust on which a notice was issued to the opposite parties. After hearing parties. Assistant Registrar, respondent No. 2 referred the dispute to the prescribed authority under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act. 1860, (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), for deciding the doubt/dispute about the legality of the election of the Committees of Management on 16.8.1994 and 2.6.1996. The reference was made by order dated 10th June. 1996. On basis of this reference, the Prescribed Authority gave opportunity to the parties to file their pleadings and evidence and after hearing passed order on 29.9.98 by which he found the election of the Committee of Management and the office bearers in the election held on 2.6.96, valid. This order of the prescribed authority was challenged in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33181 of 1998. In which the learned single Judge passed the order dated 23rd October, 1998. Impugned in this appeal.
4. Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Rules of the Court, 1952 contains provision for special appeal from order passed by a learned single Judge. Rule 5 reads as under :
'An appeal shall lie to the Court from a judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the Superintendence of the Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of its power of Superintendence or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction (or in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment order or award fa] of a tribunal court or statutory arbitrator made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, or (b) of the Government or any officer or authority, made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act of one Judge).'
5. Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Rules of Court, mentioned above, is in fact reproduction of clause 10 of the Letters Patent and not a new provision.The learned single Judge hearing a writ petition under Article 226 exercises original Jurisdiction. His order deciding the writ petition is a judgment, from which appeal will lie before a bench of two Judges under Rule 5. However, this right of appeal was taken away by 'several amendments in clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Initially, an amendment was made by U. P. High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals. 1962 (te., U. P. Act No. 14 of 1962). By this amendment, appeals from the order of the learned single Judge passed in exercise of appellate Jurisdiction or in respect of decree or orders were abolished. In 1972, it was further amended and the special appeals from the Judgment of the learned single Judge passed in writ petitions against orders of Board of Revenue and Director of Consolidation were abolished. By U. P. High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) Amendment Act, 1975. I.e., [U. P. Act No- 31 of 1975), special appeal was abolished against orders of learned single Judge passed in writ petitions arising out of judgment, order or award of tribunal. Court or statutory arbitrator made or purported to be made in exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and also against orders of the Government or any Officer or authority, made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act. Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of Rules of Court in present form, is after the amendment of 1975. Therefore, the effect of the amendment is that if the order has been passed by the learned single Judge in a writ petition under Article 226 filed against any judgment, order or award of tribunal. Court or statutory arbitrator, special appeal shall not be filed. Thus, for deciding the preliminary objection raised on behalf of respondents, it is necessary to determine whether the prescribed authority is tribunal, court or statutory arbitrator. Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. 1860 was amended by the Societies Registration (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act. 1978, i.e., U. P. Act No. 13 of 1978. The statement of object and reasons of this Act-appended to the Bill reads as under :
'It is considered necessary to empower the prescribed authority authorised to hear dispute of elections of office-bearers of the Societies. The aforesaid election of office bearers of a society whether it is satisfied of the commission of corrupt practices or of improper conduct of election.'
Section 25 of the Act reads as under :
'25. Dispute regarding election of office-bearers.--(1) The prescribed authority may, on a reference made to it by the Registrar or by at least one-fourth 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 pass such orders in respect thereof as it deems fit :
Provided that the election of an office-bearer shall be set aside where the prescribed authority is satisfied-
(a) that any corrupt practice has been committed by such officebearer ; or
(b) that the nomination of any candidate has been Improperly rejected ; or
(c) that the result of the election in so far it concerns such office-bearer has been materially affected by the improper acceptance of any nomination or by the Improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void or by any non-compliance with the provisions of any rules of the society.
Explanation I.--A person shall be deemed to have committed a corrupt practice who, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person-
(i) includes, or attempts to induce, by fraud intentional misrepresentation, coercion or threat of injury, any elector to give or to refrain from giving a vote in favour of any candidate, or any person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw or not withdraw from being a candidate at the election ;
(ii) with a view to inducting any elector to give or to refrain from giving a vote in favour of any candidate, or to inducing any person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw or not to withdraw from being, a candidate at the election, offers or gives any money, or valuable consideration, or any place of employment, or holds out any promise of individual advantage or profit to any person ;
(iii) abates (within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code) the doing of any of the acts specified in clauses (i) and (ii) ;
(iv) induces or attempts to induce a candidate or elector to believe that he, or any person in whom he is Interested, will become or will be rendered an object of divine displeasure or spiritual censure ;
(v) canvasses on grounds of caste, community, sect or religion ;
(vi) commits such other practice as the State Government may prescribe to be a corrupt practice.
Explanation II.--A 'promise of individual advantage or profit to a person' includes a promise for the benefit of the person himself, or of any one in whom he is interested.
Explanation III.--The State Government may prescribe the procedure for hearing and decision of doubts or disputes in respect of such elections and making provision in respect of any other matter relating to such elections for which insufficient provision exists in this Act or in the rules of the society.
(2) Where by 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 meeting of the general body of such society for election such office-bearer or office-bearers, and such meeting shall be presided over and be conducted by the Registrar or by any officer authorised by him in this behalf, and the provisions in the rules of the society relating to meeting and elections shall apply to such meeting and election with necessary modifications.
(3) Where a meeting is called by the Registrar under sub-section (2). no other meeting shall be called for the purpose of election by any other authority or by any person claiming to be an office-bearer of the society.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, the expression 'prescribed authority' means an officer or Court authorised in this behalf by the State Government by notification published in the official Gazette.'
6. Considering the object and reasons mentioned above and from the close look of the provisions contained in Section 25 of the Act, the legislative intent is clear that it was to provide a forum for deciding the dispute in respect of election or continuance in office of office-bearers of a society. Section provides grounds on which the election of office-bearers can be set aside by the prescribed authority. Explanations I and II provide when a person shall be deemed to have committed corrupt practices. Explanation III confers authority on the State Government to prescribe the procedure for hearing anddecision of doubts or disputes in respect of such elections and make provisions in respect of any other matter relating to such elections for which insufficient provision exists in the Act or in the rules of the society. Explanation to Section 25 further provides that for the purpose of this section, the expression 'prescribed authority' means an officer or Court authorised in this behalf by the State Government by notification published in the official Gazette. Thus, if authorised by the State Government by notification published in the official Gazette, the officer or the Court shall be prescribed authority for purpose of the Act. The State Government by notification dated October, 28, 1975, published in U. P. Gazette. Extra, dated 28th October, 1975 has authorised the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as prescribed authority. The notification reads as under :
'In exercise of the powers under the Explanation to Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Act No. 21 of 1860), as amended in its application to Uttar Pradesh by the Societies Registration (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1975 (U. P. Act No. 52 of 1975), the Governor is pleased to authorise the Sub-Divisional Magistrates within their respective jurisdiction to act as the 'prescribed authority' for the purposes of the said section of the said Act.'
7. Sub-Divisional Magistrate is an executive Magistrate and is appointed by State Government under sub-section (4) of Setion 20 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Clause (b) of sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Code provides that whereunder any law, other than this Code, the functions exercisable by a Magistrate relates to matters which are administrative or executive in nature such as the granting of a licence, suspension or cancellation of a licence, sanctioning a prosecution or withdrawing from prosecution, they shall be exercisable by an executive Magistrate. Sub-Divisional Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure functions as Court as provided in Sections 107, 108. 109, 110, 111, 112 and other sections falling in Chapter VIII of the Code. He also acts as an administrative or executive officer under various other laws. Thus he is officer as well as a Court.
8. Sri R. N. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prescribed authority decides the dispute in a summary manner. The orders passed by it are not final and he has not been invested with inherent judicial powers of the State, as such the prescribed authority is neither a tribunal nor a statutory arbitrator and special appeal from the orders passed by the learned single Judge is not barred. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of learned single Judge of this Court in Prabhat Mishra and others v. Jai Shanker Tripathi and others, 1978 ALJ 672.
9. Sri A. C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the prescribed authority is a tribunal and has been constituted to hear and decide the election disputes of the societies and their office bearers and the Inherent judicial powers of State has been conferred on it. Merely because the dispute is decided Jn summary manner after hearing parties, it cannot be said that the prescribed authority is not exercising the judicial power of the State. The summary powers are exercised for deciding the civil dispute under various Acts by the Courts in exercise of inherent judicial power of the State and merely on this ground, it cannot be said that prescribed authority is not tribunal. Learned counsel has placed reliance in cases of All India Council and another v. Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi Region. Varanasi, AIR 1988 All 236 and Sudarsan Singh Bedi v. Additional District Magistrate (Rent Control and Eviction Officer). Varanasi and others, 1993 (1) ARC 121 (DB).
10. We have thoroughly considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. A Full Bench of this Court in case of Committee of Management, Shri Kashi Raj Mahavidyalaya, Aurai District Bhadohi, Varanasi and others, (1996) 3 UPLBEC 1617 (FB), while consideringas to whether the Deputy Director of Education deciding a dispute under Section 16A (7) of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, is a tribunal or not, after examining various authorities, held in paragraph No. 16 as under :
'It would appear that to determine the question whether an authority is a tribunal, the nature of the order passed by the authority and also the characteristic of the body which is called upon to adjudicate upon the matter in dispute are material consideration. Even a judicial authority may. In a given situation act in administrative or executive capacity. In that situation the authority would not be a tribunal. Likewise an administrative authority, even if required to act judicially would not be a tribunal if it is not invested with the inherent judicial power of the State. As pointed out earlier, under Section 16A (7), the Regional Deputy Director of Education may find the person who are in actual control of the affairs of an institution, yet those persons may not be recognised as constituting the Committee of Management. By way of illustration, such a situation may obtain where valid election has been held, but the previous Committee of Management has not allowed the newly elected persons to have actual control of affairs of the institution. In such a case, even though members of previous Committee of Management may be in actual control of the affairs of the authority, they may not be recognised as constituting the committee of management. Whether the persons who are found to be in actual control of the affairs of an institution are to be recognised as constituting, the Committee of Management of the institution under sub-section (7) of Section 16A is essentially administrative in character. The finding of the Deputy Director of .' Education as to the persons in actual control of affairs of the institution does not decide the dispute as to the entitlement to be members of the Committee of Management. He is not entrusted with the duty to act judicially, though he must act fairly. He has no trappings of the Court. This finding as to the persons in actual control of the affairs of an institution lacks in finality or conclusiveness and binding nature, which is associated with the decisions of a court or a tribunal.
11. Now if the aforesaid test is applied to the prescribed authority under Section 25 of the Act. there remains no doubt that it is a tribunal. Under Section 25 prescribed authority decides important dispute of election and continuance in office of an office-bearer, which is essentially a dispute of civil nature. The order passed by the prescribed authority though has not been said to be final in specific words but sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Act specifically provides that where by 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 meeting of the general body of such society for electing such office bearer or office-bearers, and such meeting shall be presided over and be conducted by the Registrar or by any officers authorised by him in this behalf, and the provisions in the rules, of the society relating to meetings and elections shall apply to such meeting and election with necessary modifications. Thus, the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Act provide that if the election is set aside by the prescribed authority a fresh election is required to be held by the Registrar. This is sufficient indication that the order is final. The prescribed authority is also required to hear and decide in summary manner any doubt or dispute in respect of the election. Thus, the order has to be passed after hearing parties and giving them opportunity to adduce evidence. From the provisions contained in proviso, it is clear that he decides the dispute in exercise of inherent judicial powers of the State vested in him by the notification.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order of the Prescribed authority ts not final and suit can be filed challenging the same,hence he decides the dispute administratively and not judicially. We are not prepared to accept this submission. Prescribed authority under Section 25 of the Act decides the dispute judicially and in exercise of the inherent judicial powers of the State. This position is not in any way diluted because against the order of the Prescribed authority, a suit may be filed in the civil court. If this test is accepted, then no Court can exercise inherent judicial power of the State because orders can be challenged in appeal or revision or before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Finality of the order has to be judged from the effect of it on the rights of parties, if the order is not challenged further. In such a situation, it should finally resolve the dispute between parties. In our considered opinion, the Prescribed authority is a tribunal and possesses the trappings of the Court. A Division Bench of this Court in All India Council and another (supra) held in paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 as under :
'The petitioners are clearly right. Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act as amended by the State Legislature enacts a comprehensive Code and creates a designated forum or tribunal for adjudication in a summary manner of all disputes or doubts in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office-bearer of such society. It also provides the grounds upon which the election of an office bearer can be set aside. The procedure to be followed for filling up of the vacancies arising from the decisions rendered by the Prescribed authority under subsection (1) of Section 25 has also been laid down (Section 25 (2)).
It will, therefore, be seen that insofar as disputes or doubts in respect of the election or continuance in office of the office-bearers of a Society registered in Uttar Pradesh are concerned the Legislature has created a specific forum and laid down an exhaustive procedure for determination of the same under Section 25. There is no other provisions, express or otherwise, providing for determination of such disputes specifically. It is settled law that where, as here, the Legislature creates a specific forum and lays an exhaustive procedure for determination of a particular class of disputes in respect of matters covered by the statute. Such disputes can be determined only in that forum and in the manner prescribed thereunder and not otherwise. If, therefore, a dispute is raised with regard to the election or continuance in office of an office-bearer of a society registered in Uttar Pradesh, the same has to be decided only by the Prescribed authority under Section 25 (1) and not by the Registrar, save, of course, to the decision of the Prescribed authority being subject to the result of a civil suit.'
13. In case of Prabhat Mishra and others (supra) relied on by learned counsel for appellant, the learned single Judge was examining the question whether Section 25 has taken away the jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute relating to election of office-bearers of the society and in that connection, the learned single Judge held that the suit is maintainable. The question whether the Prescribed authority is a tribunal or not was not involved before the learned single Judge and the judgment does not help appellant in any manner. What we have held above, we also find support from the Division Bench judgment of this Court in case of Sudarsan Singh Bedi (supra). In fact by substituting Section 25 in the Act in present form. Legislature has constituted an election tribunal for resolving the election disputes of societies registered under the Act and disputes regarding continuance of the office-bearers of such societies : though nomenclature given is Prescribed authority. The jurisdiction of this tribunal can be invoked either under a reference made by Registrar or by 1/4 members of general body of society, as provided under Section 25 (1) of the Act. Individual members of the society have been, it appears, intentionally excluded and have not been given right to invoke the jurisdiction of tribunal, only to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and frivolous litigation. Considering the fact that generally societies consist of large number of members, such astep was very necessary. Considered from all possible angles, the conclusion, which appears just and proper, is that Prescribed authority is a tribunal.
14. For the reasons stated above, our conclusion is that the Prescribed authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, as applicable in Uttar Pradesh, is a tribunal and if the orders passed by the Prescribed authority is challenged in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the special appeal under Rule 5 of Chapter V11I of the Rules of the Court will not lie against the order of the learned single Judge passed in such a writ petition.
15. The special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable. There will be no order as to costs.