Judgment : M. Duraiswamy, J. 1. W.A.No.46 of 2014 has been filed by third parties to the writ petition in W.P.No.21752 of 2013. This Court granted leave to the appellants in M.P.No.1 of 2014 in W.A.(SR) No.2505 of 2014. Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.11.2013 made in W.P.No.21752 of 2013, the third parties have filed the above appeal. 2. Challenging the very same order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.21752 of 2013, the seventh respondent in the writ petition has filed the Writ Appeal in W.A.No.141 of 2014. 3. The first respondent in both the appeals is the writ petitioner and the other respondents were the respondents in the writ petition. 4. The writ petitioner filed W.P.No.21752 of 2013 to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent, the Registrar of Societies, Nilgiris District, Udhagamandalam to conduct a free and fair election by nominating an observer preferably in the status of a Retired High Court Judge at the cost of the petitioner, to avoid unnecessary law and order situation as contemplated under Section 26 (4) of Societies Registration Act, to oversee the election to be held on 12.08.2013 or any other day that may be prescribed shortly and further directing the second respondent, Superintendent of Police, Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris District to provide adequate police protection for the peaceful conduct of election to be conducted on 12.08.2013 or any other day that may be prescribed shortly. 5. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by appointing Thiru B.Kali, District Judge (Retd.) and Thiru Sundaradevan, IAS (Retd.) as Commissioners to conduct the election. Aggrieved over the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the above appeals have been filed by the respective parties. 6. Heard Mr.V.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in W.A.No.46 of 2014, Mr.K.Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A.No.141 of 2014 and the eight respondent in W.A.No.46 of 2014, Mr.K.M.Vijayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for first respondent in both the writ appeals and Mr.S.T.S.Murthi, learned Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents 2 to 7 in both the writ appeals. 7. Since both the appeals arises against the order passed in W.P.No.21752 of 2013, both the appeals are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment. 8. 7. Since both the appeals arises against the order passed in W.P.No.21752 of 2013, both the appeals are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment. 8. The brief case necessary for the disposal of the above appeals are as follows: (i) According to the first respondent writ petitioner, the Young Baduga Association is an Association registered under the Societies Registration Act, which has been functioning since 1961 and functioning in its own building in Church Hill Road, Udhagamandalam. The main objects of the Society are to encourage higher education among the people of Baduga Community and to provide necessary possible assistance to the Community people apart from providing healthy recreations to members by providing library, reading room for the benefit of the members and for the upliftment of the Community of Baduga, the Young Baduga Association has played a vital role till date. (ii) The Association is being managed and administered by 11 members of the Executive Committee, being elected by the General Body of the Association. The term of the Committee is for a period of two years and after two years, election would be conducted for the Executive Committee, who in turn will elect one President, two Vice Presidents, one Secretary, one Joint Secretary, one Treasurer and 11 Committee Members. The office bearers of the Association change once in two years and every two year elections were held for electing the Executive Committee members wherein the entire members of the Association are called in to cast their votes in favour of their candidates. The last election took place in the year 2006 for the period 2006-2008. (iii) For the purpose of local governance, the Community was divided into four Seemais as Thodanadu Seemai, Purangadu Seemai, Merkunadu Seemai and Kunda Seemai, which consists predominantly Baduga speaking people. The Young Baduga Association, ever since its formation, had accepted to have equal representation from all four Seemais and as such once in two years, five Executive Committee members will be elected from each of the four Seemais except Thodanadu Seemai, which will elect six members, since the particular Seemai has got vast area and more number of members. In the year 2008, election was called for the new batch of Executive Committee members. Since one of the Seemais was not able to identify their members properly, the election was postponed till 2013. In the year 2008, election was called for the new batch of Executive Committee members. Since one of the Seemais was not able to identify their members properly, the election was postponed till 2013. The Association approached the Government to condone the delay in submitting statutory records. The Government condoned the delay in submitting the statutory records on 28.03.2013. Thereafter, it was resolved among the members to have election for the period 2013-2015 and a meeting was called for on 21.05.2013. (iv) On 21.05.2013, the seventh respondent, who is the Member of the Legislative Assembly, elected from the Nilgiris District, of the present ruling party entered the Association Hall with more than 100 non-members and disrupted the meeting and claimed himself to be the President of the Association. To avoid unpleasant situation, the President and other members walked out of the Association Hall. Thereafter, on 22.05.2013, the President and other members met in the Hall, but the seventh respondent, with the aid of non-members, entered the Hall and disrupted the meeting once again. The incident was informed to the fifth respondent, who in turn suspecting law and order problem informed the fourth respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, Udhagamandalam to initiate Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure proceedings. (v) On 29.05.2013, in compliance to the summons issued by the fourth respondent, the members appeared before the fourth respondent and on the side of the seventh respondent, one J.B.Subramanian, Lakshmanan, Manjai Mohan were summoned to appear. Since nothing fruitful happened, the fourth respondent, sensing further law and order situation, instructed the sixth respondent, the Tahsildar, Udhagamandalam to lock the Association Hall. On the same day, at about 03.30 p.m., the Hall was locked and the sixth respondent affixed a notice informing the Hall being under the control of Revenue Authorities until further orders. At that time, the said J.B.Subramanian, Lakshmanan, Manjai Mohan broke open the lock put up by the sixth respondent and tore the notice affixed by him. The sixth respondent, The Tahsildar, Udhagamandalam, immediately lodged a complaint before the fifth respondent, the Inspector of Police, B1 Police Station, Udhagamandalam on 30.05.2013 in Crime No.184 of 2013. At that time, the said J.B.Subramanian, Lakshmanan, Manjai Mohan broke open the lock put up by the sixth respondent and tore the notice affixed by him. The sixth respondent, The Tahsildar, Udhagamandalam, immediately lodged a complaint before the fifth respondent, the Inspector of Police, B1 Police Station, Udhagamandalam on 30.05.2013 in Crime No.184 of 2013. (vi) On 27.05.2013, the first respondent made a representation to the Registrar of Societies to nominate an observer as provided under Section 26(4) to conduct the election peacefully as it was apprehending that the seventh respondent, who is a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly from the ruling party would disrupt the entire proceedings of the election, which were to be held on 12.08.2013. On 01.08.2013, a Peace committee meeting was convened at the Collector's Office in DRO's Chamber. During the Peace Committee meeting, the seventh respondent barged inside the Association Hall, which was under the control of the sixth respondent, along with 100 non-members and declared himself and loyalists as office bearers of the Association. The Association filed a suit in O.S.No.129 of 2013 on the file of the Subordinate Court, The Nilgiris seeking mandatory injunction as against J.B.Subramanian, Manjai Mohan and N.Subramani, who are the representatives of the seventh respondent. In the said suit, the trial Court granted interim injunction in I.A.No.332 of 2013 on 08.07.2013. (vii) In spite of the unlawful acts done by the seventh respondent, no action was taken as against the seventh respondent and his associates, since he is a Member of the Legislative Assembly. According to the writ petitioner, since the seventh respondent being a ruling party Member of the Legislative Assembly with the aid of his loyalists, tried to disturb the peaceful election of the Association. In these circumstances, the first respondent filed the writ petition. 9. The appellant in W.A.No.141 of 2014, who was the seventh respondent in the writ petition, in his counter affidavit has stated that the Association has been functioning smoothly till the year 2006 with periodical Executive Committee meetings, Annual General Body Meetings and elections were held in time. According to the appellant, it is only after T.Gundan took over as the President of the Association and the writ petitioner as Secretary in the year 2006, things started taking a different turn. According to the appellant, it is only after T.Gundan took over as the President of the Association and the writ petitioner as Secretary in the year 2006, things started taking a different turn. Further according to the appellant, even though elections were to be held in the year 2008, the above said two persons failed and neglected to take any steps to conduct the elections and in spite of continuous and repeated requests made by the members of the Executive Committee and the other members of the Association, they failed to conduct the election. On 21.05.2013, when the General Body Meeting of the Association was convened under the Presidentship of T.Gundan, many of the members present questioned him about the undue delay in conducting the elections. Apparently, unable to answer the members, he left the meeting hall and went into the office where the Executive Committee discussed the issues of elections. The Secretary also followed him. The members, who were present at the time of the meeting, condemned the attitude of T.Gundan and the members also unanimously decided to proceed with the meeting and in the said meeting, it was unanimously decided to dissolve the existing Executive Committee and to conduct the election for the Association at the earliest possible date. In the said affairs of the Association, an interim Committee headed by J.B.Subramanian was formed and the same was intimated to the Registrar of Societies under Form VII. Completely suppressing the factual position, a suit was filed in O.S.No.129 of 2013 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Udhagamandalam and an interim injunction was obtained restraining J.B.Subramanian, Manjai Mohan and N.Subramani from interfering with the administration and management of the Association and the process of election. On 25.07.2013, a complaint was lodged against the writ petitioner and other office bearers alleging misappropriation of the Association funds. On 02.08.2013, the General Body Meeting was held, in which a large number of members attended and in the said meeting, new set of office bearers were elected. The list of the elected office bearers and committee members was submitted to the Registrar of Societies under Form VII. On 02.08.2013, the General Body Meeting was held, in which a large number of members attended and in the said meeting, new set of office bearers were elected. The list of the elected office bearers and committee members was submitted to the Registrar of Societies under Form VII. Further, according to the appellant seventh respondent, inasmuch as the election of the office bearers of the Association had already completed and a completely new set of office bearers have been elected in the duly convened General Body Meeting on 02.08.2013, necessity of conducting election does not arise. In these circumstances, the seventh respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 10. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing before the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioner viz., R.Ravikumar filed an affidavit wherein he undertook to abide by any instruction from the observer from the date of election process till the completion of election. 11. Similarly, the seventh respondent Buddhichandran also filed an affidavit and in paragraph no.2 of the affidavit he has stated as follows: "I submit that I met the Chieftan of our Community in connection with the above mentioned case. The Chieftan consulted the other community leaders and informed me on 21.10.2013 that the Chieftan would be willing to have the election conducted to the Executive Committee as per the convention of the Badaga Commuity." 12. On 06.08.2013, the learned Single Judge directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Udhagamandalam and the Inspector of Police, B1 Police Station, Udhagamandalam to ensure that the order passed by the Civil Court in I.A.No.332 of 2013 in O.S.No.129 of 2013 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Udhagamandalam is enforced. The writ petitioner first respondent, alleging that the respondents 3, 4 and 5 had violated the order passed by the learned Single Judge, initiated contempt proceedings in Contempt Petition No.2018 of 2013, which was closed by the learned Single Judge finding that there is no need to keep the Contempt Petition pending since Election Commissioners were appointed to conduct the election. 13. From the order of the learned Single Judge, it is clear that the appellant seventh respondent viz., Buddhichandran, appeared before the learned Single Judge on 09.10.2013 and he expressed his readiness to conduct the election, however, he wanted a member of Baduga Community to be appointed as an Election Commissioner to conduct the election. 13. From the order of the learned Single Judge, it is clear that the appellant seventh respondent viz., Buddhichandran, appeared before the learned Single Judge on 09.10.2013 and he expressed his readiness to conduct the election, however, he wanted a member of Baduga Community to be appointed as an Election Commissioner to conduct the election. When the seventh respondent expressed his readiness to conduct the election before the learned Single Judge, now he cannot turn round and say that the election need not be conducted for the reason that on 02.08.2013 itself, the office bearers were elected by the General Body. He appeared before the learned Single Judge only on 09.10.2013. On that day, he expressed his readiness to conduct the election and he only wanted a member of Baduga Community to be appointed as a Commissioner to conduct the election. We are at loss to understand how the appellant-seventh respondent is now taking a contrary stand in the writ appeal. The appellant-seventh respondent is estopped from taking such a stand. 14. The learned Single Judge had appointed two Election Commissioners for the conduct of the election scheduled to be held on 12.01.2014. When the writ appeal in W.A.No.46 of 2014 was moved for admission and for stay on 11.01.2014, We observed that the election process had already commenced and was also nearing completion, by fixing the date of election as 12.01.2014, since all the arrangements were already made for the conduct of the election, we found that there is no necessity to stall the election scheduled to be held on 12.01.2014. We have passed the following order on 11.01.2014 in M.P.No.2 of 2014 in W.A.No.46 of 2014: "10. In these circumstances, since all the arrangements were already made for conduct of the election, we are of the considered opinion that there is no necessity to stall the election scheduled to be held on 12.01.2014, as per the order of the learned Single Judge. In these circumstances, since all the arrangements were already made for conduct of the election, we are of the considered opinion that there is no necessity to stall the election scheduled to be held on 12.01.2014, as per the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, following directions are issued: a) Election Commissioners are directed to conduct the election as scheduled on 12.01.2014 as per the Act and by-laws of the society; b) After the scheduled election is over, the Election Commissioners are directed to bring the sealed ballot boxes to the Madras High Court on the same day and hand over them to the Registrar General of this Court in the next day morning itself, i.e. 13.01.2014; c) The third respondent, namely, the Superintendent of Police, Udhagamandalam, Nilgiri District is directed to provide necessary police protection for peaceful conduct of the election to be held on 12.01.2014 and till the ballot boxes reach the Registrar General of this Court." 15. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the election was conducted on 12.01.2014 and the ballot boxes were handed over to the Registrar General of this Court on 13.01.2014. Now the ballot boxes are in the custody of the Registrar General of this Court. 16. Mr.V.Prakash, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in W.A.No.46 of 2014 submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable for the reason that the writ petitioner is not challenging the election held on 02.08.2013. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the appellant seventh respondent and the writ petitioner cannot question the election of validly elected office bearers. As per Rule 4 (b) of the By Law of the Association, the Executive Committee are collectively responsible to the General Body and all or any of them can be removed from the office at any time by a simple majority of total number of members, provided ten days notice is given. As per Rule 10, the General Body Meeting should be conducted once in six months and the Annual General Body Meeting should be held in the Month of May every year when the office bearers and other Executive Committee members shall be elected. 17. As per Rule 10, the General Body Meeting should be conducted once in six months and the Annual General Body Meeting should be held in the Month of May every year when the office bearers and other Executive Committee members shall be elected. 17. As per the original Minutes Book produced by the appellant in W.A.No.46 of 2014, on 04.05.2013, an Executive Committee meeting was conducted, in which, it was resolved to conduct a General Body Meeting on 21.05.2013 to discuss about the election to the Executive Committee. On 21.05.2013, a meeting was convened under the Presidentship of the Vice President, J.B.Subramanian, in which it was resolved to dissolve the Executive Committee. However, in the said meeting, neither T.Gundan nor the other office bearers appear to have participated. On the very same day, another meeting was convened under the Presidentship of the seventh respondent Buddhichandran and resolved to elect an ad-hoc Committee. In the said meeting, the seventh respondent was elected as Patron, J.B.Subramanian was elected as President, Lakshmanan was elected as Secretary and Manjai Mohan was elected as Treasurer. In the subsequent meetings held on 02.06.2013, 24.06.2013, 25.07.2013, 02.08.2013, 10.08.2013, 17.08.2013, 19.08.2013, 03.10.2013 and 08.02.2014, the seventh respondent - Buddhichandran presided over the meetings. In the General Body Meeting held on 02.08.2013, the seventh respondent was elected as President of the Association and five other office bearers were also elected. Pursuant to the election of the seventh respondent as the President and other office bearers, Form VII under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules was presented on 21.08.2013. The present writ petition was filed on 06.08.2013 (i.e.) prior to the presentation of Form VII. Therefore, it is clear that Form VII was presented only after the filing of the writ petition on 06.08.2013. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, in paragraph no.3, the writ petitioner has stated that the office bearers of the Association change once in two years and every two year elections were held for the election of the Executive Committee members wherein the entire members of the Association are called in to cast their votes in favour of their candidates. This averment was not denied by the seventh respondent in his counter. 18. Rule 4 (b) of the By Laws of the Association prescribe ten days notice for removing the members in the General Body Meeting. This averment was not denied by the seventh respondent in his counter. 18. Rule 4 (b) of the By Laws of the Association prescribe ten days notice for removing the members in the General Body Meeting. There is nothing on record to show that ten days notice was given before removing the office bearers of the Association. When the meeting was convened on 04.05.2013 under the Presidentship of T.Gundan, it was resolved to conduct a meeting on 21.05.2013 for the purpose of discussing about the election to the Executive Committee. In such circumstances, the reason for dissolving the Committee on 21.05.2013 by the seventh respondent and others, is not known. After removing the office bearers from the posts held by them, on the very same day, the seventh respondent conducted another General Body Meeting and elected an ad-hoc Committee. On 02.08.2013, the seventh respondent was elected as President. 19. On a perusal of the resolution passed on 02.08.2013, it is clear that the election was not conducted in a democratic way. It is needless to say that in a democratic country like India, all elections should be conducted only in a democratic way and not otherwise. The parties cannot act in an un-democratic manner and elect themselves as office bearers of the Association. The office bearers can be elected only by proper election as contemplated under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and Rules made thereunder. The mainstay of a democratic society is an election, which is a formal decision-making process by which, a population chooses an individual to hold office, thereby putting an end to the age old practice of customs and conventions and participating in the election process. Keeping with the said idea in their minds, parties, in order to rule out the difference of opinion among them and also to uphold the unity and integrity of the Society, have decided to resolve the same by way of several rounds of meetings and have finally taken a decision to conduct election for the Society. It is also to be noted that for a long period of seven years, election has not been conducted and ultimately, everyone has shown the positive sign of starting with the election process, as per the By laws of the Society, which states that election has to be conducted for the Society once in two years. It is also to be noted that for a long period of seven years, election has not been conducted and ultimately, everyone has shown the positive sign of starting with the election process, as per the By laws of the Society, which states that election has to be conducted for the Society once in two years. On enunciation of democratic principles and after acceptance of the parties, two observers have been duly appointed to supervise and conduct the election on the basis of mutual consent given by them. Therefore, it is incumbent on every stake holder of the Society to follow all norms and procedures in conducting election and the outcome of such election is binding on the parties. On analysis of entire events taken place from the date of inception of By Laws and tradition followed by the Association, parties have decided to go on with democratic principles of governing the society in an orderly and peaceful manner for claiming their rights in one voice. The members and office bearers of the Association have also entered their personal appearance in this Court and expressed their willingness on the election process, by showing their pro-active and interest in conducting the election. Now, in order to strengthen the democratic set up and move forward, only thing remains is counting of votes, which are secured in strongholds, for the sole purpose of development of the Society so as to gain appreciation and achieve its vision and mission towards fulfillment of the goal of the Society, which has been established, for such avowed object. 20. When the writ petitioner has filed the writ petition to nominate an observer and to give police protection for the smooth conduct of the election and in the absence of any petition being filed either by the seventh respondent or by the other members challenging the notification issued for conducting the election, this Court is not inclined to go beyond the scope of the writ petitions and therefore, only the issue with regard to the conduct of the election can be decided in these writ appeals. 21. 21. Mr.K.Sridhar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant seventh respondent in support of his contention relied upon a judgment of a Full Bench of this Court reported in 2005 (2) CTC 161 [C.M.S. Evangelical Suvi David Memorial Higher Secondary School Committee, Karisal, through its Secretary, Sri S.David Stephen S/o Samuel, Karisal, Ambasamudram Taluk Tirunelveli District and others Vs. The Dist. Registrar Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli Dist. and others] wherein the Full Bench held as follows: "20. As the power of the Registrar to hold enquiry is only to arrive at a prima facie conclusion as to the correctness of the particulars given in Form VII, the provision of sub-section (9) of Section 36 should also be understood to mean that he could issue such directions to the registered society or any of the member of the society only with reference to the details furnished in Form VII. It must also be borne in mind that the enquiry under Section 36 is not only limited to the regular affairs of the society and such affairs not only include the constitution of a registered society but also to the working and financial condition, and hence the power of the Registrar to issue such direction under sub-section (9) of Section 36 of the Act, in regard to the constitution of the registered society must be understood in the context of Form VII. Section 14 obligates the registered society to maintain a register containing the names, addresses and occupations of its members. Section 15 further mandates such registered society shall file with the Registrar a copy of the register maintained by it under Section 14 and from time to time file with the Registrar notice of any change among the members of the committee. In the absence of failure to comply with Section 14, the Registrar could only resort to the power under Section 37 to cancel the registration. Hence, the power under sub-section (9) of Section 36 cannot be stretched to a power on the Registrar to direct the registered society to hold fresh election. A direction to hold fresh election would amount to indirectly setting aside the earlier election and such power is not conferred on the Registrar under any of the provisions of the Act. So long as the election is not declared invalid in the manner known to law, no direction for fresh election could be ordered. A direction to hold fresh election would amount to indirectly setting aside the earlier election and such power is not conferred on the Registrar under any of the provisions of the Act. So long as the election is not declared invalid in the manner known to law, no direction for fresh election could be ordered. Validity of the election could very well be decided only by the competent Civil Court as the parties are entitled to let in their evidence to sustain their respective claims. In the event the Registrar satisfies himself as to the particulars furnished in Form VII as correct, he should enter the names in the register maintained for that purpose. In the event if he does not satisfy as to the particulars and thereby does not accept Form VII, he has to issue a direction relegating the parties to approach the Civil Court for appropriate orders and thereafter shall act as per the orders of the Civil Court. Accordingly, the issue is answered. Post the Writ Appeals for disposal accordingly." In this judgment, a Full Bench of this Court decided the scope of Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. Following the judgment of the Full Bench, one of us (V.Dhanapalan,J.) in an unreported judgment dated 23.06.2008 made in W.P.No.43643 of 2006 held that under Section 36 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, the Registrar has got ample suo motu powers to cause enquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of a registered Society and hence, the Registrar is not precluded from doing so. 22. Mr.S.T.S.Murthi, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 to 7 submitted that the Official respondents have acted as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and they have not violated any provisions of the Act in any manner. Further, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the Official respondents 2 to 7 will abide by the order of this Court and comply with any direction given by this Court in the above Writ Appeals. 23. From the available records, we are of the considered view that since 21.05.2013, the seventh respondent appellant and his supporters have acted in a un-democratic way by electing themselves as the office bearers of the Association. 23. From the available records, we are of the considered view that since 21.05.2013, the seventh respondent appellant and his supporters have acted in a un-democratic way by electing themselves as the office bearers of the Association. When the objects of the Association are to encourage higher education among the people of Baduga Community and to provide necessary possible assistance to the Community people apart from providing healthy recreations to members by providing library, reading room and for the upliftment of the Community of Baduga, in-fight between the members of the Community would only damage and spoil the upliftment of the Community. The seventh respondent and his loyalists are looking for their personal gains either in the Association or in the Society and for achieving the same, they are only spoiling the unity and the welfare of the Baduga Commuity. The seventh respondent having appeared before the learned Single Judge and expressed his willingness to conduct the election cannot turn round and take a different stand before this Court now. The appellants in W.A.No.46 of 2014, who are the alleged office bearers of the Association claim that they are disapproving the willingness given by the seventh respondent, who claims to be the President of the Association. Since the learned Single Judge had directed the Election Commissioners to conduct the election and the Election Commissioners also gave election notice on 21.12.2013 fixing the date of election as 12.01.2014, pursuant to the order passed by this Bench on 11.01.2014, the election was conducted and the ballot boxes were handed over to the Registrar General of this Court. It is settled position of law that once election process had commenced, the same cannot be interfered by this Court and the election process should be completed and the same can be challenged only before the Competent Election Tribunal. 24. On 02.07.2013, a meeting was conducted by the writ petitioner and it was decided to conduct the election on 12.08.2013. On 05.07.2013, election notification was published by the Association giving 21 days notice as contemplated under the Act. But on 02.08.2013, without an election agenda, the General Body Meeting was convened and the seventh respondent and others were elected as Office Bearers with the approval of just 33 persons. Therefore, the decision to go for fresh election was agreed upon under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. 25. But on 02.08.2013, without an election agenda, the General Body Meeting was convened and the seventh respondent and others were elected as Office Bearers with the approval of just 33 persons. Therefore, the decision to go for fresh election was agreed upon under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. 25. The seventh respondent and his supporters ought to have followed the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, in keeping the Society in a democratic set up. At least in the future, we expect, not only the seventh respondent, but also the other members of the Association to work jointly for the welfare of the Baduga Community people. 26. The first respondent writ petitioner, the Young Baduga Association filed a miscellaneous petition in M.P.No.3 of 2014 in W.A.No.46 of 2014 seeking for a direction to the Election Commissioners to count the votes caste in the election held on 12.01.2014 from the ballot boxes under the custody of the Registrar General of this Court and to declare the results, pending disposal of the Writ Appeal. 27. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the office bearers should be elected only in a democratic way as per law and we find no error or illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Since we are confirming the order of the learned Single Judge, we direct the Election Commissioner viz., Thiru Sundaradevan, IAS (Retd.) to count the votes cast in the election held on 12.01.2014, in his presence, which is under the custody of the Registrar General, on 27.02.2014 at 11.00 a.m. at the Meeting Hall, Additional Library Building, High Court Buildings, Chennai. The Registrar General is directed to hand over the custody of the ballot boxes to the said Election Commissioner. The Election Commissioner shall permit the candidates, who contested the election or their representatives at the time of counting of the votes. On completion of the counting of the votes, the Election Commissioner shall declare the results immediately. In order of prevent any law and order problem, the Registrar General of this Court is directed to inform the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, to provide adequate police protection at the time of counting of the votes. 28. On completion of the counting of the votes, the Election Commissioner shall declare the results immediately. In order of prevent any law and order problem, the Registrar General of this Court is directed to inform the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, to provide adequate police protection at the time of counting of the votes. 28. The first respondent Association is directed to pay a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only), to Thiru Sundaradevan, IAS (Retd.), the Election Commissioner, from the funds of the Association towards his remuneration within a period of two weeks from today. 29. In the result, both the writ appeals are dismissed with the above directions and observations. M.P.No.3 of 2014 in W.A.No.46 of 2014 is allowed. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2014 in W.A.No.46 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 in W.A.No.141 of 2014 are closed.