Judgment :- 1. Heard Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. G. Shankaran, learned Special Government Pleader (Edn.) for the respondents 1 and 2; Mr.R.Kannan, learned counsel for the third respondent and Mr.V.Bharathidasan, learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5. 2. One Mudaliar Educational Trust is the educational agency that runs four institutions, viz., i) Erode Arts and Science College, Rangampalayam ii) Dr. R.A.N.M. Arts and Science College, Rangampalayam iii) Erode Institution of Technology, Kavindanpadi iv) Kamakshi Amman ITI, Kavindanpadi The said Trust is administered by the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees are elected once in three years. An election took place on 24.05.2000 to elect the Trustees in the Board of Trustees and the said election was put to challenge by the respondents 4 and 5 by filing a suit in O.S.No.482 of 2004 before the II Additional District Munsif Court, Erode. The relief sought for in the suit are as follows:- "(a) To declare that the General body meeting and election to the General council, executive committee and office bearers of the 1st defendant Trust held on 24.05.2000 are not valid, illegal, arbitrary under law; (b) To grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants 3 to 15, 17 to 33 from functioning as General council and executive committee members and office bearers of the 1st defendant Trust in pursuance of the election held on 24.05.2000. (Amended as per order in I.A.No.752 of 2003 dated 28.07.2003) (c) To grant mandatory injunction directing to conduct a fresh election to the general council members, Executive committee members and the office bearers of the 1st defendant Trust as per Bye-law by appointing a Advocate commissioner or Registrar of Societies under Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act; and (d) For costs." 3. After contest, the trial Court decreed the suit and granted the following reliefs on 30.09.2009:- TAMIL 4. In these circumstances, the first respondent passed an order dated 03.12.2009 invoking its power under G.O.Ms.No.1021, Education Department, dated 02.09.1985 directing the second respondent to disburse the salaries payable to both the teaching and non teaching staff employed in the Erode Arts and Science College and also to carry out all other works referred to in G.O.Ms.No.1021. 5. The aforesaid order dated 03.12.2009 passed by the first respondent is challenged in this writ petition by the Trust. 6. This Court, while ordering notice of motion, granted interim order on 10.06.2010. 7. 5. The aforesaid order dated 03.12.2009 passed by the first respondent is challenged in this writ petition by the Trust. 6. This Court, while ordering notice of motion, granted interim order on 10.06.2010. 7. In the mean time, some of the defendants in O.S.No.482 of 2004 filed an appeal in A.S.No.74 of 2009 against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.482 of 2004 on 30.09.2009 before the Sub Court, Erode. They have also filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.923 of 2009 seeking interim order. The appellate Court granted stay on 08.12.2009 and the operative portion of the said order is as follows:- TAMIL 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 08.12.2009 passed in I.A.No.923 of 2009 in A.S.No.74 of 2009 passed by the appellate Court, C.R.P.(NPD)No.1580 of 2010 was filed before this Court. The order of the appellate Court was confirmed by this Court on 15.07.2010 in C.R.P.(NPD)No.1580 of 2010. Para 10 of the said order passed in C.R.P. (NPD)No.1580 of 2010 is relevant for the purpose of this case and the same is extracted here-under:- "At first blush it appears as though the appellate Court exceeded its power in granting stay of the Joint Director taking over administration of the Society concerned as per the order of the Director by taking cognizance of what had happened subsequent to the passing of the decree by the trial Court in. Normally the appellate Court is expected to confine its focus to the decree passed by the trial Court. Subsequent to the passing of the trial Court, if any Governmental agency passed any order then it is for the aggrieved party to treat it as a separate cause of action and approach the appropriate forum for appropriate relief. However, in this case, since the subsequent order of the Director in appointing the Joint Director was after taking cognizance of the developments that occurred in the litigative process before the Court, the appellate Court in its wisdom though fit to interfere and felt that all along office bearers pendente lite were administering it and the same could continue despite the disposal of the case by the trial Court. As such, this is a discretionary power exercised by the appellate Court which is seized of the matter. As such, this is a discretionary power exercised by the appellate Court which is seized of the matter. I recollect the settled principle that the appellate Court is the last Court of facts and in its wisdom and discretion it thought fit to allow the all along existing office bearers to continue to remain in office, pending elections are conducted as per the lower Courts decree and it has also not granted any injunction to stop the conduct of election. As such, in this revision, I do not incline to interfere with such order of the stay granted by the appellate Court. However, I am constrained to point out that pending litigation ever since 2000, no order has been obtained from the Court for interim administration of the Society or the College under the Society and I am at a loss to understand as to how for nearly a decade the litigation prolonged without the parties obtaining necessary orders from the Court in that connection. Be that as it may, it is a fact that the parties of their own accord without getting any orders from the Court, conducted elections and the revision petitioner herein also was one of the office bearers of that elected body and in such a case, all of a sudden I do not incline to destabilise the same and interfere with the order of the appellate Court. However, in view of the conflicts that are going on in the Society concerned, I would like to pass order enabling the revision petitioner herein as well as the plaintiffs/R7 and R8 herein to have supervision, monitoring and right to gather information from the office bearers on the present administration and if they are having any grievance, they could petition the appellate Court and appellate Court after hearing both sides shall issue suitable directions as an interim measure and I also direct the appellate Court to dispose of the memo filed by the Advocate Commissioner seeking direction, after hearing all concerned by 31st July 2010." 9. After the impugned order was passed two significant developments took place, one is the interim order dated 08.12.2009 of the appellate Court order in I.A.No.923 of 2009 in A.S.No.74 of 2009 which is extracted above. Later, the same was confirmed by this Court on 15.07.2010 in C.R.P.(NPD)No.1580 of 2010. 10. After the impugned order was passed two significant developments took place, one is the interim order dated 08.12.2009 of the appellate Court order in I.A.No.923 of 2009 in A.S.No.74 of 2009 which is extracted above. Later, the same was confirmed by this Court on 15.07.2010 in C.R.P.(NPD)No.1580 of 2010. 10. The order of the appellate Court in I.A.No.923 of 2009 in A.S.No.74 of 2009 dated 08.12.2009 as well as the order of this Court in C.R.P.(NPD)No.1580 of 2010 dated 15.07.2010 make it very clear that the impugned order dated 03.12.2009 cannot be sustained. 11. In view of the order of the appellate Court in I.A.No.923 of 2009 in A.S.No.74 of 2009 dated 08.12.2009 and the order of this Court in C.R.P.(NPD)No.1580 of 2010 dated 15.07.2010, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the same is quashed. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps are closed.