JUDGMENT (N. Kotiswar Singh, J) Heard Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned Counsel of the appellants and Mr. Ibotombi Singh, Ld. Senior Counsel for the Respondent. 2. The present writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.2.2013 passed by the Ld. Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 84 of 2013 by which the Ld. Single Judge directed the respondents, the appellants herein, to issue notice for holding the postponed Annual General Meeting and election of office bearers and members of the Executive Council of the Manipur Olympic Association within two weeks. 3. The facts in brief as may be relevant for the purpose of consideration of this writ appeal may be stated. Upon expiry of the term of the office bearers and the members of the Executive Council of the Manipur Olympic Association (MOA) on 18.11.2012, a notification was issued on 24.11.2012 by the Secretary of the MOA for holding the Annual General Meeting and also for holding the election of the office bearers and Executive Council members on 21.12.2012. Accordingly, the Returning Officer was also appointed on 3.12.2012. Thereafter, on 11.12.2012, a Memorandum was issued notifying the eligible list of representatives/final voters list to attend the Annual General Meeting of the MOA to be held on 21.12.2012. The Returning Officer also published the names of the contesting candidates in respect of all the posts on 16.12.2012. Thus while the stage was set for holding the Annual General Meeting as well as the election of the office bearers and members of the Executive Council, just a day prior to it, the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No.II, Manipur East, passed an ex parte injunction order in Judl. Misc. Case no. 349 of 2012 (Ref: Original Suit No. 69 of 2012) on 2012.2012 restraining the holding of the Annual General Meeting and the election of the office bearers. After the said injunction order was passed, an emergency Executive Council meeting of the MOA was held on 21.12.2012 at 9 a.m. which took a resolution for postponement of the Annual General Meeting as well as holding of the scheduled election. Subsequently, on 2.1.2013, the said injunction order was stayed by the Ld. District Judge in Judi Misc. Case No. 2 of 2013. Later, however, the plaintiffs withdrew the said Judl Misc. Case No. 349 of 2012 along with the Original Suit No. 69 of 2012. Subsequently, on 2.1.2013, the said injunction order was stayed by the Ld. District Judge in Judi Misc. Case No. 2 of 2013. Later, however, the plaintiffs withdrew the said Judl Misc. Case No. 349 of 2012 along with the Original Suit No. 69 of 2012. In view of the withdrawal of the suit, the appeal pending before the Ld. District Judge was also disposed of. Thus after withdrawal of the said Original Suit and disposal of the cases, there was no further impediment from the Court in holding the Annual General Meeting as well as the election of the office bearers of the MOA and Executive Council members. However, when the said Annual General Meeting as well as the Election of the office bearers were not held in spite of absence any legal hurdle to do so and having failed to persuade the MOA to hold the Annual General Meeting and the elections, the petitioner association approached this Court by filing the Writ Petition (C) No.84 of 2013. The Ld. Single Judge after hearing the parties allowed the said writ petition by directing to proceed with the Annual General Meeting and election by fixing the date of the meeting and election within two weeks as follows: “(7). In this circumstance, this Court is of considered view that there is no impediment in holding the postponed annual general body meeting and postponed election of Executive Council. As stated above, learned counsel for the parties are also of the unanimous view that there is no impediment in holding the postponed general meeting and postponed election. It is also clear from the submission of learned counsel for the parties that the Manipur Olympic Association (MOA) had approached the Government of Manipur i.e., Director, Youth affairs & Sports, Government of Manipur, vide application dated 11.6.2011 for extending financial assistance to the tune of Rs.66,27,05,815/- for organising 1st and 2nd National Youth Game , 2012 as per the approval of the Indian Olympic Association vide letter no. IOA/MOA-84/2010, dated 19.2.2010. As state above, for getting financial assistance there should be election of the MOA. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the parties that there should be annual meeting of the MOA and also election of Executive Council for getting financial assistance. (8). In the above factual backdrop, the writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent nos. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the parties that there should be annual meeting of the MOA and also election of Executive Council for getting financial assistance. (8). In the above factual backdrop, the writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent nos. 1 and 2 to issue notice for holding the postponed Annual General Body Meeting and election of Office Bearers and members of the Executive Council of the Association on the basis of the Memorandum Dtd 11.12.2012, i.e., list of eligible representatives /final voters list within a period of two weeks from today, i.e., on or before 07.03.2013. The period of notice for election under Rules, is 21 days. In the given circumstances, election should be completed before 04.04.2013. With the above direction the writ petition is allowed. The Registry is directed to furnish the copy of this order to the learned counsel appearing for the parties within 48 (forty-eight) hours.” 4. That being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Single Judge, the appellants, who were the respondents in the writ petition preferred a review petition, being Review Petition No. 4 of 2013 which was dismissed by the Ld Single Judge on 21.3.2013 holding that no case had been made out for review of the order passed. Thereafter, the present writ appeal was filed by the appellants and on refusal to grant stay of the operation of the impugned judgment, the appellants had approached the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition which was dismissed on 23.9.2013 with the observation that all contentions of the petitioners are kept open to be agitated in the writ appeal which is pending before the High Court. 5. In the present writ appeal the appellants have raised three contentions mainly. It has been submitted that though the appellants are also keen to have the election and the Annual General Meeting held at the earliest, there are certain irregularities which need to be rectified before such meeting and elections are held. The appellants have also contended that the writ petition was not at all maintainable, being filed by an authorised person. It has been submitted that though the appellants are also keen to have the election and the Annual General Meeting held at the earliest, there are certain irregularities which need to be rectified before such meeting and elections are held. The appellants have also contended that the writ petition was not at all maintainable, being filed by an authorised person. It was contended that the writ petition was filed by the Triathlon Association of Manipur, represented by one K. Jayananda Sharma, claiming to be the Secretary of Triathlon Association of Manipur, though the Secretary was another person, namely, S. Mohendro Singh as evident from the letter dated 21.2.2013 written by the Asstt. Registrar of Societies to the Director of the MOA and as such filing of the writ petition by an unauthorised person is not permissible apart from committing an act of perjury by filing false affidavit. According to the appellants, since the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. In this regard, Ld. Counsel for the appellants has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Dhananjay Sharma vs. State of Haryana & Ors., (1995) 3 SCC 757 , Badami (Deceased) by L.R vs. Bhali, (2012) 11 SCC 574 . Secondly, it has been contended that Manipur Rifles Association, one of the constituents of the Manipur Olympic Association had not submitted any report and returns since its registration in 1963 because of which an inquiry was directed to be conducted into its affairs, thus showing irregularities in its functioning which is evident from the letter dated 25.7.2013 written by the Addl. Registrar of Societies to the Secretary of MOA (Annexure A-1). According to the appellants, in view of the irregularities, the participation by the representatives of the said association in the scheduled Annual General Meeting and election of the office bearers of MOA and members f the Executive Council would not be proper. Thirdly, it has been contended that under the Bye laws of the Manipur Olympic Association it is only with the prior permission of the President of the MOA that the name of the nominated representative of an association could be changed as provided under Article 8(d) of the Constitution of the MOA. Thirdly, it has been contended that under the Bye laws of the Manipur Olympic Association it is only with the prior permission of the President of the MOA that the name of the nominated representative of an association could be changed as provided under Article 8(d) of the Constitution of the MOA. It was stated that several Associations have sought for change of their representatives which cannot be done without permission of the President of the MOA. Thus unless these changes are allowed, the proposed elections may not be held. It was submitted that if the rules provide the procedures for taking a particular action, such procedure must be complied with and not otherwise for which the Ld. Counsel has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Prakash H. Jain vs. Marie Fernandes (Ms), (2003) 8 SCC 431 . 6. The writ petitioner, the respondent herein, has resisted the appeal by contending that the present appeal is not maintainable in as much as the impugned order passed by the Ld. Single Judge is a consensus order and as such the appellants are estopped from challenging the same by filing this appeal. It has been denied that the said K. Jayananda Sharma is not the Secretary of Triathlon Association of Manipur by relying on a subsequent communication from the Registrar of Societies through his letter dated 20.3.2013 addressed to the petitioner association in which it has been clearly mentioned that the said K. Jayananda Sharma is the Secretary of Triathlon Association of Manipur. As regards the alleged irregularities in the functioning of the Manipur Rifles Association, it has been submitted that it has been subsequently clarified by the Registrar of Societies vide his letter dated 19.8.2013 (Annexure A-J) that the on enquiry it has been ascertained that the Manipur Rifles Association had been functioning smoothly since its registration in 1963 and accordingly cancelled the earlier letter dated 25.7.2013 written by the Addl. Registrar of Societies to the contrary. Coming to the contention of the appellants that the various associations have sought for change of their representatives which however, cannot be done without the permission of the President of the MOA, it has been contended that as per the “Election Rules” of the MOA as approved by the Executive Council on 30.4.1993 (Annexure T/3) the detail procedure for publication of the representatives /voters list, correction of the list etc. have been provided and there could be no changes once the electoral process had been initiated by issue of election notice and publication of voters list. Therefore, change of the representatives is not permissible and as such the question of obtaining prior permission of the President for change of the representatives does not arise once the election process had been set into motion more particularly, after the publication of the voters list and last date of nomination is over and the list of candidates published. In the present case it was stated that the after completing all the formalities including publication of voters list, the Returning Officer published the list of contesting candidates on 16.12.2012 and as such correction of the voters list at this stage is not permissible. In this connection, the Ld. Counsel has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Lakshmi Charan Sen and others, vs. A.K.M. Hassan Uzaman and others, AIR 1985 SC 1233 . 7. As we proceed to deal with the rival contentions of the parties, it is to be noted that it is well settled that appeal is not maintainable against consent orders. In the present case, the ld. Single Judge had observed in paragraph no. 7 of the impugned order that “As stated above, learned counsel for the parties are also of the unanimous view that there is no impediment in holding the postponed general meeting and postponed election” and further that “It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the parties that there should be annual meeting of the MOA and also election of Executive Council for getting financial assistance.” In the light of the aforesaid observations made, the direction issued by the Ld. Single Judge to the appellants to proceed with the holding of general body meeting and election of the office bearers can be said to be based on consent of the parties. To that extent the contention of the present respondent/writ petitioner that the present writ appeal is not maintainable as it was a consensus order merits acceptance. Otherwise also, we are also of the considered opinion that the present writ appeal lacks merit. The contention of the appellants that the writ petition was filed by an unauthorised person cannot be accepted without a clear finding to that effect. Otherwise also, we are also of the considered opinion that the present writ appeal lacks merit. The contention of the appellants that the writ petition was filed by an unauthorised person cannot be accepted without a clear finding to that effect. Though the Assistant Registrar in his letter dated 23.2.2013 had stated that the said K. Jayananda Sharma is not the Secretary of Triathlon Association of Manipur, (the petitioner association), it was subsequently stated by the Registrar of Societies in his letter dated 20.3.2013 that K. Jayananda Sharma is the Secretary of Triathlon Association of Manipur. Thus, in absence of any finding to the effect that the subsequent letter of the Registrar is not correct, it would be difficult to hold that K. Jayananda Sharma is not the Secretary of Triathlon Association of Manipur and hence the writ petition is not maintainable. This Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution does not normally enter into disputed facts for determination which is best left to be decided by the appropriate forum or civil court of competent jurisdiction. Moreover, this aspect not having been raised before the Ld. Single Judge nor at the time of filing of the review petition before the Ld. Single Judge, we, at this appellate stage are not inclined to examine the same and interfere with the impugned order on this ground. 8. Ld. Counsel for the appellants has taken great pains to submit that without prior permission of the President of the MOA there cannot be any change of the representative of any association as provided under Article 8 (d) of the Constitution of the MOA and many representations were submitted by various associations for change of their representatives who are authorised to vote in the annual general meeting and the elections to be held. Therefore, holding of elections and the annual general meeting without making necessary changes of the representatives by the President of the MOA as sought by various associations would amount to denial of exercise of his power as provided under Article 8(d) of the Constitution of MOA. In this regard, it may be mentioned that before such requests were made by various associations, the electoral process had been already set into motion by issuing of the election notice on 24.11.2012 by the Secretary of the MOA. The Returning Officer had been also appointed on 3.12.2012 for the scheduled election. In this regard, it may be mentioned that before such requests were made by various associations, the electoral process had been already set into motion by issuing of the election notice on 24.11.2012 by the Secretary of the MOA. The Returning Officer had been also appointed on 3.12.2012 for the scheduled election. The list of the eligible voters had been notified on 11.12.2012 and the Returning Officer had published the names of the contesting candidates on 16.12.2012 and it was all set for holding of the annual general meeting on 21.12.2012 which process, however, was interrupted by an injunction order passed on 20.12.2012 by the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), No. II, Manipur East. Had it not for the injunction order, the election and the annual general meeting would have been held in absence of any other intervening circumstance. Thus, once the hurdle caused by the injunction order was lifted by withdrawal of the suit in which the injunction order was passed, the annual general meeting and elections ought to have been held. It was in that background and also on the submissions of the parties as recorded in paragraph no.7 of the impugned judgment quoted above that the Ld. Single Judge allowed the writ petition directing the holding of the election and the annual general meeting. 8. If there had been no injunction order passed by the Civil Court, the annual general meeting and the election would have ensued on the basis of the voters list already notified. Change in the votes list after notification of the same for the election would not be entertainable under normal circumstances as it would have the effect of revising and upsetting the entire electoral process and schedule already set into motion. Revision of voters list would have required calling for objections before finalising the same which could have also resulted in change in the list of candidates for elections and so on and so forth. The subsequent fallout would be that the election process could be prolonged which is to be avoided. The byelaws of the MOA specifically provide that election shall be held once in four years at the annual general meeting to elect the office bearers and the members of the Executive Council. Thus by prolonging the electoral process beyond four years, the said provision would be frustrated, which ought to be avoided. The byelaws of the MOA specifically provide that election shall be held once in four years at the annual general meeting to elect the office bearers and the members of the Executive Council. Thus by prolonging the electoral process beyond four years, the said provision would be frustrated, which ought to be avoided. In election matters, Courts normally do not interfere with the electoral process as it amounts to interference with the democratic process. In this regard it may be apposite to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in "N. P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakhal Constituency, Namakkal, Salem Dist.", AIR 1952 SUPREME COURT 64 wherein it was observed as follows: “16. The conclusions which I have arrived at may be summed up briefly as follows : (1)Having regard to the important functions which the legislatures have to perform in democratic countries, it has always been recognized to be a matter of first importance that elections should be concluded as early as possible according to time-schedule and all controversial matters and the disputes arising out of elections should be postponed till after the elections are over, so that the election proceedings may not be unduly retarded or protracted. (2) In conformity with this principle, the scheme of the election law in this country as well as in England in that no significance should be attached to anything which does not affect the "election;" and if any irregularities are committed while it is in progress and they belong to the category or class which, under the law by which elections are governed, would have the effect of vitiating the "election" and enable the person affected to call it in question, they should be brought up before a special tribunal by means of an election petition and not be made the subject of a dispute before any Court while the election is in progress.” We are of the view that the principle enunciated above that election should be concluded as early as possible according to time schedule and all controversial matters and disputes arising out of election should be postponed till after the elections are over and such dispute should not be made subject of a dispute before any Court while the election is in progress, will be equally applicable in the present case also, even though the elections in issue is of an association, and not of any legislative body, nevertheless it relates to an elected and representative body, which is informed by democratic principles. Election is the mechanism and democratic process by which the will of the majority opinion gets reflected and as such whenever, election as a method is provided to choose the persons to manage the affairs of any institution, be it public or private, regular and timely holding of such election ought not be interfered unless very grave and serious issues are involved. In present case, no such serious or grave issue has been brought to our notice which may warrant interference with the election process. After all, the affairs of the MOA are to be managed by elected representatives based on democratic principles and as such stalling the election process may not be in public interest. It may be noted that the issue on which basis the election process is sought to be postponed is not because of any serious illegality committed in the election process but merely to enable the President to exercise his power to allow change of the representatives of constituent associations as sought by some associations and because of certain allegation relating to the functioning of a constituent association. However, all these so called irregularities were brought on record only after the election process had been set into motion and after it was stayed by an injunction order of a civil court though these could have been done earlier. As discussed above, such change or consideration ought not to be undertaken after the election process has been already set into motion by publication of the date of election, voters list, list of candidates etc. Nothing prevented the associations to have approached the President of the MOA earlier for change of their representatives before the election process was set into motion. The alleged irregularities in the functioning of the Manipur Rifles Association are also disputed. Therefore, we are of the view that merely because some associations have made requests for change of the representatives later on after the electoral process had been set into motion and there are some allegations relating to the functioning of a constituent association, it may not be appropriate to stall the election process. 9. Keeping the aforesaid factual background in mind and relevant law in this regard, we are of the view that there is no irregularity or illegality in the decision of the Ld. Single Judge as to warrant interference by us in this writ appeal. We are also of the view that the election process must be allowed to complete its normal course without any further interference. However, this will not preclude any of the interested parties from challenging the election process or the proceedings of the Annual General Meeting and any related matter before an appropriate forum or a civil court of competent jurisdiction after the process of election is over. However, this will not preclude any of the interested parties from challenging the election process or the proceedings of the Annual General Meeting and any related matter before an appropriate forum or a civil court of competent jurisdiction after the process of election is over. Accordingly, we dismiss the writ appeal and the appellants are directed to proceed with the holding of the Annual General Meeting and election of the office bearers and members of the Executive Council of the Manipur Olympic Association by issuing a fresh notification fixing the date for holding the postponed Annual General Meeting and election of the office bearers and members of the Executive Council on the basis of the Memorandum dated 11.12.2012 notifying the list of representatives/voters list within a period of two weeks from today and take all such necessary and consequential steps for holding the Annual General Meeting and election of the office bearers and members of the Executive Council of the Manipur Olympic Association in accordance with the rules and provisions of the Constitution of the Manipur Olympic Association.