ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25th April 2012 passed by the learned single Judge (Justice Smt. Sheema Ali Khan) in C.W.J.C. No. 8250 of 2012, the writ petitioner has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent (the impugned judgment is not annexed to the Appeal. It is the case of the appellant that the judgment is not yet available). 2. The appellant, a practicing advocate of this Court, has appeared in person. The appellant claims that he is the member of the Advocates’ Association of Patna High Court (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Association’). The election of the office bearers of the Association is scheduled on 3rd May 2012. Although the appellant has been a member of the Association since 1989, this year his name has been removed from the voters’ list. Pursuant to the notice dated 9th April 2012 published in accordance with Rule 19 of the Model Election Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2005 Rules’) framed by the Bihar State Bar Council, the appellant had submitted his objection on 10th April 2012. Without considering the said objection, the objection was rejected by the Returning Officer under order dated 12th April 2012. The appellant has, thus, been not only deprived of his statutory right to vote in the ensuing election of the office bearers of the Association, he has also been deprived of right to contest the election. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed above C.W.J.C. No. 8250 of 2012 under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the submission of the appellant the said petition has been dismissed by the learned single Judge on 25th April 2012. Therefore, this Appeal. 4. The appellant has submitted that it is an extraordinary circumstance that a member of the Association has been excluded from the voters’ list and his objection against such exclusion has not been properly considered. He has submitted that the election being scheduled on 3rd May 2012, the same is required to be stalled until the matters are resolved. In support of his submission the appellant has relied upon the judgments of this Court in the matters of N.S. Madhavan v. Shyamdeo Prasad, [ 2010 (3) PLJR 578 ]; and of Jagannath Singh v. Bihar State Bar Council, [ 2010 (1) PLJR 345 ]. In support of his submission the appellant has relied upon the judgments of this Court in the matters of N.S. Madhavan v. Shyamdeo Prasad, [ 2010 (3) PLJR 578 ]; and of Jagannath Singh v. Bihar State Bar Council, [ 2010 (1) PLJR 345 ]. The appellant has vehemently argued that right from the notice dated 4th April 2012 in respect of the provisional voters’ list, at every stage the office bearers of the Association have violated the statutory Rules of 2005. The appellant and such other members have not been given adequate opportunity to lodge objection against the exclusion of their names from the voters’ list or for agitating their objections. 5. Be that as it may. It is a well settled law that once the machinery for conducting election is put into motion the election shall not be stalled. That is the law restated in the above referred judgments relied upon by the appellant. We are not able to hold that an extraordinary circumstance exists which calls upon us to stall the elections scheduled tomorrow. 6. Suffice it to say that the appellant has adequate remedy of raising Election Dispute before the Bihar State Bar Council. 7. The appellant has also submitted that he being the member of the Association, he must at least be allowed to cast his vote at the election scheduled tomorrow, the 3rd May 2012. Admittedly, the appellant’s name has not been included in the voters’ list. Such limited direction also cannot be issued in favour of the appellant. 8. In the above circumstances, without entering into the merit of the contentions raised by the appellant, the Appeal is disposed of as not pressed. The appellant will have liberty to raise election dispute in accordance with Clause (x) of Rule 19 of the 2005 Rules.