Judgment :- These twenty-one petitioners being aggrieved by the impugned endorsements dated 27.02.2008 bearing No.A2: Registration:58:2008-09 issued by the first respondent vide Annexure-H, H1 to H20 and also assailing the correctness of the finding recorded by the third respondent in para-31 of the report dated 04.07.2007 in No.JiJaAaAa/Mai/Vicharane-1/06-07 vide Annexure-K; and assailing the calendar of events dated 05.03.2009 bearing No.Chu Vi Sa Mai/Aa Ma Chu/7/08-09 issued by the second respondent vide Annexure – L, have presented these Writ Petitions. 2. The undisputed facts of the case are that, the fourth respondent-Vidyavardhaka Sangha, represented by its President-Mr. P.M. Chikkaboraiah has filed W.P. No.18645/2007 (GM-KSR) questioning the correctness of the appointment of the administrator to fourth respondent-Sangha and also the report submitted by the third respondent therein-Enquiry Officer and the Assistant Agricultural Officer (Technical) dated 04.07.2007. The said Writ petition had come up for consideration before the learned Single Judge of this Court on 15.04.2008 and the same came to be dismissed. Assailing the Correctness of the said Order, the petitioner therein preferred Writ Appeal No.746/2008 before the Division Bench of this Court. The said appeal had come up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court on 05.08.2008. On that day, after hearing both sides and after perusing the records, the Division bench had disposed of the said appeal with some directions. In pursuance of the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court dated 05.08.2008 in W.A.No.746/2008, the first respondent has issued the notice to the genuine members of the Sangha and issued the impugned endorsements vide Annexure-H, H1 to H20 as referred above and the second respondent in compliance of the directions of the Division Bench of this Court being Returning Officer, has issued the provisional list of 131 members. After holding enquiry and after providing an opportunity to the genuine members, he had issued the calendar of events dated 05.03.2009 for conducting election to the Sangha to be held on 29.03.2009. It is further the case of the petitioners that the entire proceedings were conducted without notice to them and without giving an opportunity to them and proceeding contrary to the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, they were constrained to redress their grievance by presenting the instant writ Petition seeking appropriate relief. 3. The principal submission canvassed by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Therefore, they were constrained to redress their grievance by presenting the instant writ Petition seeking appropriate relief. 3. The principal submission canvassed by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. P.S. Manjunath at the outset is that, the impugned endorsement and the report submitted by the enquiry officer and the calendar of events issued by the second respondent cannot be sustained and it is liable to be vitiated on the ground that, these petitioners being members of the fourth respondent-Sangha ought to have been issued with notice and afforded with an opportunity to substantiate that, they are genuine members of the said Sangha; and that, without compliance of the principles of natural justice, the respondents have proceeded and not included the names of these petitioners in the list after conducting an enquiry. To substantiate this submission, he is quick to point out the directions of the Division Bench of this Court, specifically directions 1 and 2 and contend .that, the Division Bench of this Court has directed to finalise the list of voters after providing an opportunity of hearing to the members and while doing so, if any member files objection it has to be considered as expeditiously as possible and only thereafter final list of electoral shall be published by him. The said directions had not been complied with by the respondents. Therefore, the impugned endorsements are liable to be rejected. Further he submitted that, the report submitted is unilateral and it is not binding on the petitioners. Therefore, he submitted that, the impugned endorsements, and the enquiry report and also the calendar of events are liable to be quashed. 4. Per contra, the learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 3 inter alia contended and substantiated the impugned endorsements stating that, they are issued strictly in compliance of the direction issued by this Court, and after issuing notice to 131 members, the list has been prepared and 116 members are genuine members of fourth respondent – Sangha and thereafter, as per the direction of the Division Bench of this Court calendar of events had been issued for the election to fourth respondent – Sangha. Hence, he submitted that, the instant Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground that, if the petitioners are being aggrieved they are entitled to approach proper forum in accordance with the provisions of the Act as per the direction No.(vi) issued by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.746/2008. Further, he submitted that, so far as the report of the enquiry officer is concerned, it has been submitted as early as in 2007 and there is a delay of two years and it has not been questioned before the appropriate authority and hence, it has become final and it cannot be disturbed at this stage as the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition and no Order is passed by this Court in this regard. Therefore, the prayer sought by the petitioners is misconceived in nature and they are not entitled to seek consequential reliefs as sought for in these Writ Petitioners. 5. After having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 and learned Counsel for respondent – 4 after careful evaluation of the entire material on record, what it emerges is that, the matter had come up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.746/2008 on 05.08.2008 and after hearing both sides, the said Appeal filed by the fourth respondent-Sangha represented by its president came to be disposed of with seven directions, which read thus: i) Respondent No.2, the District Registrar, Mysore, would finalise the electoral roll. This he shall do within a period of two months after affording opportunity of hearing to the members. ii) While doing so, if any member files any objections, then the same shall also be considered by him as expeditiously as possible and only thereafter final list of electoral shall be published by him. iii) After publication of the same, the calendar of events shall be fixed for holding the election in accordance with the provisions of the Act. iv) Respondent No.2 shall strictly adhere to and observe all the mandatory requirements of the provisions of Act for holding the election. v) After finalising the list within the aforesaid period, the election shall be held and the results would be declared within a further outer period of two months from the date of finalising the list. iv) Respondent No.2 shall strictly adhere to and observe all the mandatory requirements of the provisions of Act for holding the election. v) After finalising the list within the aforesaid period, the election shall be held and the results would be declared within a further outer period of two months from the date of finalising the list. vi) Any person aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondent No.2, shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with the provisions of the Act. vii) Even after finalisation of the electoral roll by the respondent No.2 and till new committee is constituted, the committee which is looking after the affairs of the appellant-society would continue to do so under the supervision of respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 would have all the rights to look into the affairs of the appellant – society as has been conferred on him under the provisions of the Act. 6. It is significant to note that, the Division Bench of this Court has issued direction (i) to (vii) directing the second respondent – District Registrar, Mysore, to finalise the electoral roll after affording opportunity of hearing to the members. While doing so, if any member filed any objections, then the same shall be considered by him as expeditiously as possible and only thereafter final list of electoral shall be published by him. It is significant to note here that, an Enquiry Officer has been appointed to enquire the matter regarding genuineness of the membership of the fourth respondent-Sangha and the proceedings dated 23.09.2005. The third respondent-Enquiry Officer after conducting thorough enquiry with reference to the relevant material on file has submitted his detailed report vide Annexure-K dated 04.07.2007, wherein he has rejected the membership of these petitioners as per the proceedings dated 23.09.2005, and gave a report that, there are 131 genuine members in the fourth respondent – Sangha. That report has attained finality as on date. Petitioners have not chosen to question the correctness of the report holding that, these petitioners are not the members of the fourth respondent-Sangha. 7. Be that as it may. That report has attained finality as on date. Petitioners have not chosen to question the correctness of the report holding that, these petitioners are not the members of the fourth respondent-Sangha. 7. Be that as it may. The first respondent in consonance with the direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court has issued notice to all the 131 members and after conducting thorough enquiry has finalised the voters’ list of 116 members of fourth respondent-Sangha on 27.02.2009, vide Annexure-J, and issued the impugned endorsements. I do not find any error or illegality or material irregularity in issuing such endorsements, nor is it the case of the petitioners that, they have challenged the enquiry report submitted by the third respondent, before filing the instant Writ Petition. Therefore, interference by this Court is not at all justifiable nor I find any good ground to consider the case of the petitioners. 8. So far as prayer No.2 is concerned, the petitioners have questioned the correctness of the report given by the enquiry officer dated 04.07.2007 vide Annexure-K, which was the subject matter before the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.18645/2007 questioned by the fourth respondent – Sangha through its President-Mr. P.M. Chikkaboraiah. The said Writ Petition has been dismissed by an order dated 15.04.2008 and same was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.746/2008 on 05.08.2008. That has become final. Therefore, the question of interference that too after two years is not justifiable nor I find any good ground to consider reliefs sought by the petitioners. However, it is needless to clarify that, the petitioners are given liberty by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.746/2008 to question the same before the appropriate forum in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 9. So far as prayer No.3 is concerned, petitioners are questioning the calendar of events dated 05.03.2009 issued by the second respondent vide Annexure-L, fixing the date of election as 29.03.2009. As already discussed, the calendar of events is in consonance with the bye-laws of the Sangha, read with relevant provisions of the Act and Rules, Hence, interference by this Court when the election process is set in motion, is not justifiable in view of the mandatory provisions of the Constitution of India and in view of settled law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in catena of Judgments. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, these Writ petitions are dismissed as devoid of merits. Ordered accordingly. Learned Government Advocate is permitted to file the Memo of Appearance on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 within two weeks. Mr. Puttige R. Ramesh, learned Counsel is permitted to file Vakalath on behalf of fourth respondent within two weeks.