RAJIV SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record produced by the learned Standing Counsel. ( 2 ) IN Writ Petition No. 2306 (M/s) of 2004, the petitioners pray for a direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the orders dated 30. 1. 2004, 12. 12. 2003 and 7. 5. 2003 passed by the opposite party No. 3 and further they pray for a direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to interfere in the peaceful functioning of the Committee of management of the Society till expiry of its term in the year 2006 in any manner whatsoever. ( 3 ) IN Writ Petition Nos. 2003 (M/s) of 2007 and 2160 (M/s) of 2007, the petitioners pray for a direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 3. 4. 2007 passed by the opposite party No. 3 and order dated 5. 4. 2007 passed by the opposite party No. 5. Further, prayer is for a direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party No. 5 to attest and verify the signatures of the petitioner No. 2 as Manager of the committee of Management of Dev Krishna Inter College, Sagwar, District unnao and Manager of the Committee of Management of Sri Jai Devi Balika uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Sagwar, District Unnao, on the basis of the elections held on 11. 2. 2007 and to allow the petitioners to continue as committee of Management of the said College notwithstanding the impugned orders dated 3. 4. 2007 and 5. 4. 2007. ( 4 ) FACTUAL matrix of the cases are that Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Unnao was registered as society in the year 1964 under the Societies Registration act,1860 (hereinafter referred to as the act) and is managing the affairs of several Colleges. The term of the Committee of Management of the Society is three years with further extension of one year. Elections were held as and when the same had fallen due till the year 1999. However, in the election held on 15. 1. 1999, Sri Mahendra Kumar Shukla and Sri Parashu Ram Misra were elected as President and Manager respectively, but on 5. 11. 1999 Sri Parshuram misra died and as such Prabhakar Misra was elected as Manager for the residual term of the Committee of Management. However, in the election held on 15. 1. 1999, Sri Mahendra Kumar Shukla and Sri Parashu Ram Misra were elected as President and Manager respectively, but on 5. 11. 1999 Sri Parshuram misra died and as such Prabhakar Misra was elected as Manager for the residual term of the Committee of Management. ( 5 ) AFTER Prabhakar Misras taking over charge as the Manager of the committee of Management, he applied for renewal of the certificate of the society, but the same was not renewed and as such, a writ petition bearing number 1543 (MS) of 2001 was filed. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the opposite party No. 3 to issue the renewal certificate. In pursuance to the orders passed in the aforesaid writ petition, petitioners moved a representation to opposite party No. 3 on which cognizance was taken by issuing notice to opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 in order to resolve the dispute. ( 6 ) AFTER hearing the parties opposite party No. 3 vide order dated 15. 3. 2003 directed for issuance of renewal certificate for a period of five years w. e. f. 10. 10. 2000. On a complaint being moved by the opposite party No. 4 that no meeting of the office bearers was held on 21. 11. 1999 as on that date there was terahi of late Parshuram Misra and as such there was no occasion for holding any election and electing Prabhakar Misra as the Manager of the institution. On the said complaint, notice was issued requiring Sri Prabhakar misra to clarify the position by 10. 4. 2003, to which on 9. 4. 2003 an adjournment was sought. However, on 14. 4. 2003, it has been informed that his terahi was held on 17. 11. 1999. He further requested for supply of the copy of the complaint but however he tendered his reply. Not being satisfied with the reply so tendered, opposite party No. 3 passed an order dated 7. 5. 2003 to the effect that as the last election of the Committee of Management was held on 15. 1. 1999, there was no occasion for holding an election of the Committee of Management in the year 2000 as the term of the Committee of Management which was elected on 15. 1. 1999 came to an end on 14. 1. 5. 2003 to the effect that as the last election of the Committee of Management was held on 15. 1. 1999, there was no occasion for holding an election of the Committee of Management in the year 2000 as the term of the Committee of Management which was elected on 15. 1. 1999 came to an end on 14. 1. 2002 and thereafter no elections were and as such, in exercise of powers conferred under section 25 (2) of the Societies registration Act, he directed for holding of elections. The said order as alleged by the petitioners was kept on file and was never served upon the petitioners. ( 7 ) SUBSEQUENT to the aforesaid orders, a compromise dated 22. 5. 2003 was entered into between the petitioners and opposite party No. 4 as regards management of institutions whereby the management of three colleges was entrusted to Sri Prabhakar Mishra and the remaining to Smt. Ranno Mishra and on the basis of the said compromise vide order dated 22. 5. 2003, the dispute between the petitioner and the opposite party No. 4 pending before opposite party No. 3 was directed to be consigned to record. After the orders dated 22. 5. 2003 passed by the opposite party No. 3 on the basis of compromise, the records were consigned but on an objection being raised by Sri Prabhakar mishra, a notice dated 6. 10. 2003 was issued requiring the petitioner as well as opposite party No. 4 to adduce evidence and it was also provided in the said order that the position as it stood prior to 22. 5. 2003 was restored back. ( 8 ) THE aforesaid order dated 6. 10. 2003 was challenged before this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 4072 (M/s) of 2003 and this Court vide order dated 7. 11. 2003 disposed of the writ petition directing therein that on representation being moved before the Deputy Registrar, he will decide the matter afresh by a speaking and reasoned order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the representation and thereafter notices were issued for holding elections. In continuation of the proceedings initiated under section 25 (2) of the Act, vide order dated 7. 5. 2003, the opposite party No. 3 passed the order dated 12. 12. 2003 directing to hold election to which sub-Divisional Magistrate vide order dated 30. 1. In continuation of the proceedings initiated under section 25 (2) of the Act, vide order dated 7. 5. 2003, the opposite party No. 3 passed the order dated 12. 12. 2003 directing to hold election to which sub-Divisional Magistrate vide order dated 30. 1. 2004 informed that the institution falls within the jurisdiction of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bigapur and not within the jurisdiction of Sadar, Unnao. Being aggrieved by the said orders dated 7. 5. 2003, 12. 12. 2003 and 30. 1. 2004 the petitioners preferrd a writ petition which was numbered as writ petition No. 2306 (M/s) of 2004. ( 9 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to initiation of proceedings under section 25 (2) of the Act, elections were held by the Society on 17. 8. 2003. He also submits that the order dated 7. 5. 2003 is in violation of principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the same and further learned Standing Counsel has failed to show from the record that any notice has been issued prior to initiation of proceedings under section 25 (2) of the Act. ( 10 ) IN the elections held on 17. 8. 2003, the petitioner No. 2 was elected as manager and an intimation was duly furnished to the office of the Registrar and it is only thereafter that the opposite party No. 3 passed the orders dated 12. 12. 2003 and 30. 1. 2004. ( 11 ) IT has also been pointed out that a notice was issued to the petitioners on 28. 3. 2003 (Annexure 15) is not a notice for initiation of proceedings under section 25 (2) of the Act as the same was issued on a complaint of Smt. Ranno mishra, who has prayed for reviewing the order dated 15. 3. 2003 and there was no other prayer, therefore, by no stretch of imagination. It can be said that there was any complaint in any manner whatsoever by any of the members that the election was not held within time. It has also been alleged that the opposite party No. 3 is acting on the behest of one Member of Legislative Assembly, though there is no pleading in the memo of writ petition nor the said Member of legislative Assembly against whom mala fides attributed, has been arrayed as party to the writ petition. It has also been alleged that the opposite party No. 3 is acting on the behest of one Member of Legislative Assembly, though there is no pleading in the memo of writ petition nor the said Member of legislative Assembly against whom mala fides attributed, has been arrayed as party to the writ petition. ( 12 ) DR. L. P. Mishra, learned Counsel has also pointed out that as per Bye-laws of the Society, there is a clause that the members of the Committee of management will continue to function till holding of fresh elections and further, the outgoing Committee of Management or any person is debarred from holding of election only after the Registrar has convened a meeting of the general Body for the purpose of election as provided under section 25 (3) of the Act. ( 13 ) LASTLY, Dr. L. P. Mishra submitted that though it is not disputed that the term of the Committee of Management has expired, but in view of the bye-laws of the Society, the term of the elected office bearers has been provided as three years. However, the elected office bearers can continue to hold the office till the fresh office bearers take over inasmuch as there is no provision in the bye-laws which makes the elected office bearers defunct after three years. It has also been contended that so long as an order under section 25 (2) of the societies Registration Act, is not issued by the Registrar for the purposes of convening a meeting for holding fresh elections it is always open to the elected office bears to hold elections of the Committee of Management even after expiry of the term provided in the bye-laws inasmuch as no vacuum is contemplated. ( 14 ) IN support of the above submission, learned Counsel has relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Committee of Management, Vidya Wati higher Secondary School, Shahpur, Azamgarh and another v. Assistant registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh and others, 2005 59 ALR 10. ( 14 ) IN support of the above submission, learned Counsel has relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Committee of Management, Vidya Wati higher Secondary School, Shahpur, Azamgarh and another v. Assistant registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh and others, 2005 59 ALR 10. ( 15 ) IN Committee of Management, Vidya Wati Higher Secondary School (supra) on which reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court has held in paragraph 7 that the right to convene a Meeting for the purpose of holding elections of the office bearers is with the outgoing committee of Management and after expiry of the term of the office bearers, the Society is lost only when the Registrar passes order under section 25 (2) of the Act for convening a meeting of the General Body of the Society for holding fresh election. It is at this stage only that outgoing office bearers are debarred from convening any meeting for the said purpose. ( 16 ) ON the strength of the aforesaid decision Dr. L. P. Mishra contended that in the instant case also the Registrar has not convened any meeting and as such the elections which were held on 17. 8. 2003 i. e. before passing of the order under section 25 (2) of the Societies Registration Act on 12. 12. 2003, are valid one. He further submitted that after expiry of the period of three years fresh elections were held in the year 2006. The papers in this regard were submitted to the Deputy Registrar, Firm, Societies and Chits. He also informs that the managing Committee so elected in the year 2006 is managing the affairs of the society. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. Lastly, he contended that impugned order dated 7. 5. 2003 is in blatant disregard to the principles of natural justice as no notice was ever issued before passing the said order. The notice dated 28. 3. 2003 cannot be said to be a notice for initiation of proceedings under section 25 (2) of the Societies Registration Act which was issued on an application of Smt. Ranno Mishra. In the said application Ranno mishra has already prayed for reviewing the order dated 15. 3. 2003 and a perusal of this application would clearly establish that no other prayer was made. In the said application Ranno mishra has already prayed for reviewing the order dated 15. 3. 2003 and a perusal of this application would clearly establish that no other prayer was made. ( 17 ) REBUTTING the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. D. K. Singh Chauhan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the impugned orders dated 7. 5. 2003, 12. 12. 2003 and 30. 1. 2004 have rightly been passed and there is no illegality or infirmity in the said orders. He further submits that the elections were held on 15. 1. 1999 in which Parashu Ram mishra was elected as Manager and after his death on 21. 11. 1999, Prabhakar mishra was elected as Manager for the residual term, though the same is disputed by the opposite party No. 4. The term of Committee of Management has expired on 14. 1. 2002 and since no election has taken place, the Registrar has rightly issued the notice dated 28. 3. 2003, to which no objections were filed by the petitioner, but the petitioners have requested vide application dated 9. 4. 2003 for further time to file objections. The Deputy Director again issued a notice to the petitioners alongwith a copy of the complaint. Instead of filing reply, the petitioners preferred a Writ Petition No. 4662 (M/s) of 2003 praying therein for holding election. Further, another writ petition was filed which was numbered as Writ Petition No. 4517 (M/s) of 2003 for grant of renewal certificate. ( 18 ) LEARNED Counsel for the opposite parties further submits that the petitioners have concealed the material facts of filing Writ Petition No. 4662 (M/s) of 2003 where they have prayed for further time for holding elections. Thus, admittedly, the elections were not held by the petitioners outgoing committee of Management within the stipulated time, i. e. till 14. 1. 2002 and as such, the proceedings were rightly initiated for holding the elections under section 25 (2) of the Act and the Deputy Registrar has authorized Sub-Divisional magistrate, Beeghapur, who has also published the date of election in newspaper in pursuance of the order dated 7. 5. 2003 passed by the Deputy Registrar. Elections were held but on account of continuance of the interim orders, the result could not be declared. 5. 2003 passed by the Deputy Registrar. Elections were held but on account of continuance of the interim orders, the result could not be declared. He further submits that the term of Committee of management of which result has been withheld has also expired on 14. 7. 2007 and as such, the writ petitions have lost their efficacy hence he prays that interest of justice would suffice, if a direction is given to the authorities for holding fresh election in accordance with the provisions of law. ( 19 ) COUNSEL for the opposite party No. 4 also urged that the petitioners have not come to this Court with clean hands which would be evident from the fact that they have suppressed the material facts before this Court insofar as the petitioners has not disclosed that writ petition No. 4072 (M/s) of 2003 was filed and this Court vide order dated 7. 11. 2003 directed the Registrar to dispose of the matter pending before him and consequently by the order dated 12. 12. 2003, the Registrar directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Unnao to hold the election afresh. Thereafter, petitioners filed another writ petition no. 4662 (M/s) of 2003 with a prayer that the time fixed for elections be extended for further six months, which was dismissed by this Court. However, on an application moved by the petitioners, the time was extended two months for holding election vide order dated 24. 12. 2003. ( 20 ) IT has been urged by the respondents Counsel that the elections cannot be withheld after notification has been issued and in support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon Rama Kant and another v. Assistant registrar, Firms, Societies and Chit Funds, U. P. Varanasi and 31 others, 2005 59 ALR 398, and basant Prasad Srivastava and another v. State of U. P. and another, 1993 2 UPLBEC 1333. ( 21 ) ON the basis of pleadings, it can easily be inferred that there is no dispute that their term of the Committee of Management has come to an end on 14. 1. 2002 and thereafter, the Registrar is the competent authority to hold election in exercise of powers conferred under section 25 (2) of the Act, after expiry of the term of the Committee of Management. 1. 2002 and thereafter, the Registrar is the competent authority to hold election in exercise of powers conferred under section 25 (2) of the Act, after expiry of the term of the Committee of Management. ( 22 ) THE provision in the bye-laws as argued by Dr L. P. Mishra for continuance of office bearers till fresh office bearers take over is only meant to meet out the emergent situation or to meet out the extraordinary situation for a reasonable period subject to condition that appropriate initiatives should have been taken by the office bearers to hold the election. In case, it is permitted as suggested by Dr. L. P. Mishra, then it shall give a set back to the democratic process which is the backbone of a society formed under the Act. The term of the office bears who were elected on 15. 1. 1999 has come to an end on 14. 1. 2002 and no efforts were taken by the outgoing members of the office bearers for holding election till 17. 8. 2003, i. e. , after lapse of 1-1/2 years and as such, the order dated 7. 5. 2003 passed by the Deputy Registrar in exercise of powers conferred under section 25 (2) of the Act cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary in any manner whatsoever. It is only in pursuance of the order dated 7. 5. 2003, the consequential orders dated 12. 12. 2003 and 30. 1. 2004 have been passed. It may be added that no action has been taken by the out going members of the committee between 14. 1. 2002 to 17. 8. 2003 and it is only after the order dated 7. 5. 2003 passed by the Deputy Registrar, the out going members convened a meeting for holding election, which according to Dr. Mishra was held on 17. 8. 2003. The term of the said committee has also come to an end on 16. 8. 2007, but on account of the continuance of the interim order passed in Writ Petition No. 2306 (M/s) of 2004, the out going committee of management is continuing. ( 23 ) I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the orders dated 7. 5. 2003, 12. 12. 2003 and 30,1. 2004. 8. 2007, but on account of the continuance of the interim order passed in Writ Petition No. 2306 (M/s) of 2004, the out going committee of management is continuing. ( 23 ) I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the orders dated 7. 5. 2003, 12. 12. 2003 and 30,1. 2004. The cases, namely, Committee of Management, vidyawati Higher Secondary School v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh and others, 2005 59 ALR 10 relied upon by Dr. L. P. Mishra is of no help to him. In the said case, the elections were held on 2. 3. 2003 after expiry of the terms of three months and the orders passed by the Assistant Registrar in exercise of powers under section 25 (2) of the Act on 4. 12. 2003, i. e. subsequent to the elections, whereas in the instant case the Registrar has passed the order dated 7. 5. 2003 under section 25 (2) of the Act and subsequent to passing of the said order the election as alleged by Dr. L. P. Mishra was held on 17. 8. 2003. ( 24 ) I find force in the submissions advanced by Mr. D. K. S. Chauhan that after the election process has started, if any party is aggrieved, he may challenge the election by approaching the appropriate forum and the writ petition is not the remedy. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Shivappa ambi and others v. Angadi Shekara Basappa and others, 1998 4 SCC 529 has observed that once the election is over, the aggrieved candidate will have to pursue his remedy in accordance with the provisions of law and the High Court will not ordinarily interfere in the elections under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 25 ) A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Basant Prasad Srivastava and another v. State of U. P. and another, 1993 2 UPLBEC 1333, has held that once the election process starts, it must come to its logical conclusion. Further, when the election comes to its logical conclusion by declaration of result of the election, the aggrieved person may challenge the election by filing election petition or civil suit in accordance with law. Further, when the election comes to its logical conclusion by declaration of result of the election, the aggrieved person may challenge the election by filing election petition or civil suit in accordance with law. It was further observed that approach to Court at an intermediate stages in the election is bound to result in an office either remaining vacant or being occupied by a person whose entitlement to hold the office has ceased. It is therefore desirable that the election should end as early as possible. ( 26 ) IN Rama Kants case (supra), the election process has started but it has not been completed as the result could not be declared due to stay order passed by the Court. The petitioner in the said writ petition has challenged the validity of the order dated 3. 6. 2002 passed by the Assistant Registrar whereby he has finalized the list of members and has also fixed election schedule. The petitioner has contended that they have come forward with a view to ensure that genuine voters are not deprived of their valuable rights. This Court while dismissing the writ petition held as under: - "in the cases cited by Counsel for the parties, election had been held and election process had been completed. In the instant case, though election process has started, but it has not been completed as result has not been declared. It is settled law that once election is notified, Court should not interfere in the election process. Result of the election has been stayed by this Court as a result whereof, duly elected members are unable to take charge of their office. Since election process has not been completed, the writ petition is not maintainable. " ( 27 ) IN Utnesh Shivappa s case (supra), the Honble Supreme Court held as under: "it is now well settled that once an election is over, the aggrieved candidate will have to pursue his remedy in accordance with the provisions of law and this (sic High) Court will not ordinarily interfere with the elections under Article 226 of the Constitution. (See in this connection para 3 in k. K. Srivastava v. Bhupendra Kumar Jain ). The Court will not ordinarily interfere where there is an appropriate or equally efficacious remedy available, particularly in relation to election disputes. (See in this connection para 3 in k. K. Srivastava v. Bhupendra Kumar Jain ). The Court will not ordinarily interfere where there is an appropriate or equally efficacious remedy available, particularly in relation to election disputes. In the present case, under section 70 (2) (c) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 any dispute arising in connection with the election of a President, Vice-President, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer or member of Committee of the Society has to be referred to the Registrar by raising a dispute before him. The Registrar is required to decide this in accordance with law. " ( 28 ) IN Basant Prasad Srivastavas case (supra) on which reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 4, this Court in paragraph 7 of the judgment held as under: "in our opinion the judgment of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity. The election process having started it must come to its logical conclusion. Once it has come to its logical conclusion by declaration of result of the election the aggrieved person may challenge the election by filing election or civil suit in accordance with law. In such a proceeding the election may not be set aside if the alleged illegality or irregularity has not materially affected the result of the election. Approach to Court at intermediate stages in the election is bound to result in an office either remaining vacant or being occupied by a person whose entitlement to hold the office has ceased. Neither is a happy situation. It is, therefore, desirable that the election process should end as early as possible and the declaration of result should not be deferred through repeated order passed from time to time. In taking this view we have the support of authorities which may be immediately noticed. " ( 29 ) FROM the aforesaid case laws it is clear that the Court cannot stall the election process under a writ jurisdiction. Moreover the preparation of election electoral roll is the part of election process and in case there is any illegality in preparation of such electoral roll that can be challenged after declaration of the result in accordance to law (See: Sri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Duggdha Utpadak Sanstha and another v. State of Maharastra and others, 2001 8 SCC 509 . ( 30 ) IT would be useful to add that whenever a controversy involved is a disputed question of fact then ordinarily it should not be adjudicated under extraordinary remedy of Article 226 of the Constitution. In a recent judgment sanjay Sitaram Khemka v. State of Maharastra and others, 2006 5 SCC 255 , the Honble Supreme Court observed as under: "a writ petition, as has rightly been pointed out by the High Court, or grant of the said reliefs, was not the remedy. A matter involving a great deal of disputed questions of fact cannot be dealt with by the High Court in exercise of its power of judicial review. As the High Court or this Court cannot, in view of the nature of the controversy as also the disputed questions of fact, go into the merit of the matter; evidently no relief can be granted to the petitioner at this stage. " ( 31 ) IN the Case of Committee of Management and another v. Assistant registrar Firms, Societies and Chits and others, 2001 45 ALR 845, a Division Bench of this Court has held that after expiry of tenure of Committee of Management, erstwhile members of the Committee of Management can not hold the election and only the Deputy Registrar may proceed to hold the election in pursuance to the power conferred by sub-section (2) of section 25 of the Act. Relevant portion from the Judgment of Committee of Management and another v. Assistant registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits and others (supra) is reproduced as under : "3. . . . . In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Assistant registrar was justified in exercising powers under sub-section (2) of section 25 of the Societies Registration Act in directing that a fresh meeting of the general body be held for electing office bearers of the Society. Sri srivastava lastly urged that it is a case where there was a dispute in respect of election or continuance of office bearers of the society and, therefore, the matter ought to have been referred to the Prescribed Authority for decision under sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Act. We are unable to accept the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants. We are unable to accept the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants. The dispute referred to under this provision could arise only if the election had been held within the period of three years and two rival groups claimed to have been elected as office bearers of the Society. The claim made by both the parties was based upon the elections, which were admittedly held after more than five years. In these circumstances, the Assistant Registrar was perfectly justified in issuing direction to hold a fresh election under sub-section (2) of section 25 of the Act. We, therefore, find no illegality in the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. " ( 32 ) THUS, the office bearers who were elected have no right to usurp the office and run the society for any reason whatsoever after completion of their term. They have no right to hold the office for such a long period, i. e. for more than the period for which they were elected. In case they are permitted to do so, it shall amount to give set back to the democratic process in the society. In such situations, it shall be the duty of the Registrar to take initiative under section 25 (2) of the Societies Registration Act. Further, as the elections were not held within the specified time as such after expiry of the term the out going committee cannot hold the election and it is only the Registrar or the deputy Registrar to hold the election. ( 33 ) ACCORDINGLY, the writ petition No. 2306 (M/s) of 2004 is liable to be dismissed. ( 34 ) AS regards the challenge of order appointing Authorized Controller dated 3. 4. 2007 in Writ Petition Nos. 2160 (M/s) of 2007 and 2003 (M. S) of 2007 is concerned, I do not find any illegality in the said order. Insofar as the scheme of Administration which has been formulated as required under section 16 (ccc) of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and approved by the competent Authority, the term of the Committee of Management is three years. From the facts mentioned above, it would be clear that no election was held after 2002 by the out going committee of management and as such, a report was submitted to the competent authority informing about the fact that there is no valid elected committee of management. From the facts mentioned above, it would be clear that no election was held after 2002 by the out going committee of management and as such, a report was submitted to the competent authority informing about the fact that there is no valid elected committee of management. Thereafter, notices were issued to the petitioner on 13. 2. 2007 and 9. 2. 2007 to which no reply was given by the petitioner and as such, the order appointing Authorized Controller was passed. On perusal of the impugned order dated 3. 4. 2007, as stated above, it is revealed that the Authorized Controller has been appointed on account of the fact that there is no legally valid elected committee of management, therefore, I do not find any illegally or infirmity in the order dated 3. 4. 2007 appointing the authorized Controller. ( 35 ) AS Writ Petition No. 2306 (M/s) of 2004 has been dismissed and there was no legally valid elected Committee continuing after 14. 1. 2002, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the orders impugned in Writ Petition Nos. 2160 (M/s) of 2007 and 2003 (M/s) of 2007 by means of which the Authorized controller has been appointed and as such, no interference is called for under article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 36 ) FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, all the three writ petitions are hereby dismissed. However, the competent authority is directed to hold the election expeditiously, i. e. within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. ( 37 ) COSTS easy. Petition Dismissed. .