JUDGMENT The term of office bearers of S.B.I. Officers' Union was initially three years. But it was reduced to two years by an amendment made in the bye-laws of the Union on 30.5.93. The amendment was forwarded to the Registrar (respondent No. 2) for his endorsement on 20.9.94. He allegedly dilly-dallyed and meanwhile elections were held on 10.5.95 in which respondent No. 1 was reportedly elected. This was followed by yet another election on 11.5.97, allegedly bringing rival group to power. While this was all going on, Registrar declined to ratify the amendment by order dated 12.9.97. He also struck down the elections held on the basis of the amendment. Appellants assailed this order in W.P. No. 1431/97. The petition was dismissed by order dated 20.1.98 because of the availability of the alternate remedy before the Industrial Tribunal. They accordingly approached the Tribunal and during pendency of proceedings there, Registrar took a u-turn to pass order dated 13.5.98 endorsing amendment in the bye-laws retrospectively and issuing certified list of office bearers vide Annexure 9 and 10 to writ petition. Appellants withdrew their case from the Tribunal consequently. Now it was the turn of respondent No. 1 to file W.P. No. 751/98 and challenge Registrar's aforesaid orders reducing the term to two years retrospectively. Writ Court admitted this petition to hearing on 20.8.98 and at the same time stayed operation of Annexures P-9 and P-10 appended to the petition. Appellants feel aggrieved and have filed this appeal attacking the stay order passed by the writ Court. According to them it was a final order loaded with the consequences of ousting them from office. Respondents on the other hand challenge the maintainability of this appeal, directed as it was against interlocutory order passed by the writ Court. Meanwhile both sides claim to be holding the office by placing varying interpretations on the orders passed by Registrar. All this creates a disputed position and it is not far sure whether appellants were in office or their rival group. Be that as it may, it pales into insignificance whether the impugned orders were interlocutory or final in nature. What was important was whether these warranted interference in the facts and circumstances of the case. All this creates a disputed position and it is not far sure whether appellants were in office or their rival group. Be that as it may, it pales into insignificance whether the impugned orders were interlocutory or final in nature. What was important was whether these warranted interference in the facts and circumstances of the case. It cannot be overlooked that writ Court had admitted the rival petition to hearing and in its wisdom has stayed the orders passed by the Registrar on finding a prima fade case. The exercise of discretion was related to circumstances of the case and it could not be branded perverse. Therefore, it is not for us to overturn the applicant on taking a different view of the position. Moreover writ Court had not closed the door for the appellants for ever. Appellants could still approach it and seek appropriate modification of the impugned orders. Instead of doing so and projecting their version they had rushed to this Court in appeal. All things considered, we decline to interfere the matter and dismiss this appeal on preliminary hearing leaving appellants free to approach the writ Court and to seek re-consideration of stay order dated 20.8.98. The writ Court is requested to accord consideration to the matter and pass appropriate orders in that case.