ORDER : Mr. A.K. Sinha, the learned Senior counsel appears on behalf of the petitioner and submits that a direction is required to be issued for holding election of the Tata Workers' Union. 2. Mr. Saket Upadhyay, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and submits that in view of earlier orders passed by this Court, a further direction may be given to the Deputy Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum for ensuring free and fair election of the Tata Workers' Union. 3. Mr. Ananda Sen, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 5Tata Workers' Union refers to paragraph nos. 8 and 12 of the affidavit dated 16.10.2014 filed on behalf of the respondent no. 5 and submits that, it would be appropriate if the election is conducted under the direct supervision and control of the Deputy Commissioner and Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum. 4. Mr. Satish Bakshi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent nos. 6 and 7, who are the office bearers of the respondent-Trade Union and submits that election should be conducted under the supervision of the Registrar of the Trade Union. He also refers to the decision in “North Eastern Railway Employees Union and others Vs. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Farukhabad and Others”, reported in AIR 1988 SC 2117 . 5. I find that in the earlier proceeding, more particularly in the proceeding in WP(L) No. 3965 of 2001 such a plea was not raised by the parties in the writ proceeding and this Court directed the Deputy Commissioner and Superintendent of Police to ensure free and fair election of the Tata Workers' Union. The decision in W.P. (L) No. 3965 of 2001 dated 22.02.2002 has been accepted by all the parties and with the consent of all the parties again order dated 25.03.2012 in W.P. (L) No. 5452 of 2011 has been passed. In view of the aforesaid, the objection raised on behalf of the respondent nos. 6 and 7 is rejected. 6. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent no. 8 and he also supports the stand taken by the respondent no. In view of the aforesaid, the objection raised on behalf of the respondent nos. 6 and 7 is rejected. 6. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent no. 8 and he also supports the stand taken by the respondent no. 5 that the election of the Tata Workers' Union is required to be held, as early as possible and the Deputy Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police should be directed to ensure conduct of free and fair election of the Tata Workers' Union. 7. Mr. A. K. Mehta, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent nos. 9 and 10, who are the members of the Executive Committee of the Tata Workers' Union submits that on 29.09.2014 a decision has already been taken for holding election and it has also been notified. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent no. 5 Tata Workers' Union raised serious objection to the alleged decision as allegedly taken on 29.09.2014. 9. Without going into factual dispute and the other inter-se disputes raised between the parties, I find there is unanimity amongst the parties that the election of the Tata Workers' Union is required to be held expeditiously. It is also an admitted that in earlier proceedings, for ensuring free and fair election of the Tata Workers' Union, the Deputy Commissioner and Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum were directed to supervise the election. 10. Order dated 22.02.2002 in W.P. (L) No. 3965 of 2001 is extracted below : “8. In course of argument, learned counsels appearing for the parties including intervenor agreed that they shall have no objection if the election of the Executive Committee and the office bearers is held under the supervision of Deputy Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police, Singhbhum, East Jamshedpur. In my opinion also in the facts of the case, it is desirable that election should be held in strict supervision and control of Deputy Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur”. 11. In my opinion also in the facts of the case, it is desirable that election should be held in strict supervision and control of Deputy Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur”. 11. Again in the W.P. (L) No. 5452 of 2011 with the consent of the parties a direction was issued to the Deputy Commissioner and Superintendent of Police for ensuring free and fair election however, L.P.A No. 220 of 2012 was preferred by one of the Executive Members of the Tata Workers' Union raising certain apprehensions regarding the word “precedence” as used in the order dated 22.02.2002. The Division Bench of this Court clarified that the direction to the Deputy Commissioner and Superintendent of Police was only to ensure free and fair election of the Tata Workers' Union, in accordance with the Constitution of the Tata Workers' Union. 12. In view of the aforesaid, I hereby direct that the election of the Tata Workers' Union be held as early as possible and the Deputy Commissioner and Superintendent of Police would ensure free and fair election of the Tata Workers' Union, to be conducted in accordance with law. Let the election of Tata Workers' Union be held preferably within a period of 45 days and however, if any dispute with respect to the date of the proposed election crops up, the Deputy Commissioner would take a decision fixing the date of election, which should be concluded within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. I.A. No. 5 365 of 2014 This interlocutory application has been filed by one of the Executive Members of the Tata Workers' Union apprehending malpractice during conduct of the election. I find that in view of the order passed in the writ petition, the apprehension of the applicant is misplaced. Accordingly, I.A. No. 5365 of 2014 is dismissed.