ORDER : Anand Byrareddy, J. 1. These petitions are heard and disposed of by this common order. 2. The petition in WP 28176/2009 is filed on behalf of an educational society which was said to have been registered in the year 1956. It was registered with the sole object of running several educational institutions. It transpires that in view of a dispute having arisen in the management, the matter had come up before this court in a writ petition in WP 35818/1998, which was disposed of by order dated 18.12.1998, whereby an administrator was appointed to the Society. The administrator, after taking charge, had held elections to the society on 6.4.2003. The Committee was elected for a term of five years and one Y. Ramachandra was the president and B.K. Venkatesh was the Secretary. It transpires that the president and the secretary did not get along and to add to this, the president is said to have died even before the completion of the term of five years. The Secretary thereafter did not choose to convene any meeting and the society was not functioning in a smooth fashion. Therefore, one Prabhakar, the treasurer, and two other directors had got issued a legal notice to contend that the meeting notices were not issued and had called upon the secretary to convene a general body meeting. Since no such meeting was convened, the members of the Committee took it upon themselves to call for a meeting on 13.5.2007 and a resolution was passed to call for a general body meeting and to hold elections on 17.6.2007. On 14.5.2007, the former Secretary of the society is said to have addressed the District Registrar, seeking permission to hold elections by calling for a general body meeting as the Secretary was not cooperating in conducting the general body meeting. Accordingly, on 25.5.2007, the Committee had called for a general body meeting fixing the date of the meeting as 17.6.2007. Since the post of the president was vacant and as there were allegations of misappropriation against the secretary, a meeting was conducted on 17.6.2007, electing a new Committee, including the president. And the Committee so constituted started managing the society. Accordingly, on 25.5.2007, the Committee had called for a general body meeting fixing the date of the meeting as 17.6.2007. Since the post of the president was vacant and as there were allegations of misappropriation against the secretary, a meeting was conducted on 17.6.2007, electing a new Committee, including the president. And the Committee so constituted started managing the society. In view of the complaint made by one G.L. Narasimha Murthy as on 1.8.2007, the District Registrar had issued a notice under Section 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, requesting the elected members to appear on 17.8.2007 and had also passed an interim order restraining them from functioning. Hence, the Committee members had approached this court by way of a writ petition in WP 1296/2008 questioning the action of the District Registrar. The petition itself was allowed by order dated 14.2.2008 and this court directed the Registrar to hold an inquiry and pass appropriate orders within a period of 12 weeks and proceed in accordance with Section 25 of the Act depending on the findings at the inquiry. However, aggrieved by that portion of the order, a writ appeal was said to have been filed by the very Committee of Management before a division bench, which modified the order, permitting the Committee to raise objection as to the inquiry not being competent. However, there was a direction that no new membership shall be admitted to the society pending inquiry, by a judgment dated 27.6.2008. The inquiry was completed and a report was submitted. The inquiry report having been forwarded to the Government, the Government had issued a show cause notice to the parties. The petitioners claim that they were not served with the show cause notice so issued. It transpires that the State had proceeded to appoint an administrator. It is in that background that the petitioners had approached this court seeking stay of the appointment of the administrator. An interim order was granted. However, during the pendency of the inquiry however, the present petitioners claim to have held elections and also to have formed a new committee. This court has however held that the result of the election held by the petitioners would be subject to the result of the petition and the petitioners were restrained from announcing the result of the elections. It is in that background that the present petition is filed. 3. This court has however held that the result of the election held by the petitioners would be subject to the result of the petition and the petitioners were restrained from announcing the result of the elections. It is in that background that the present petition is filed. 3. The connected petition also is filed by the same society and two others. The primary allegation in the present petition was that respondents No. 8 and 9 seeking to act as office bearers of the elected body of the petitioner - society had issued certain orders transferring the employees of the society in the educational institutions, which were being implemented by the department. It is in that background that the present petition was filed. 4. Respondents 8 and 9 have entered appearance through counsel and have filed statement objections vehemently opposing the petition and have stated that the society no doubt was registered in the year 1956 and during the year 2003 elections were held and the committee headed by one Ramachandra and Venkatesh, who is respondent No. 9 were elected and the managing committee consisted of 11 members and the term was for 5 years. Hence, the term of the committee members would have been completed in the year 2008. It is contended that the second petitioner had played fraud in trying to declare himself as the president and the third petitioner was claiming to be the Secretary of the society. Respondents 1 to 7 after having noticed the falsity of their claim, held an inquiry, which was challenged by the petitioners in WP 1296/2008. Though there was an interim order of stay, the present respondents were not parties to the said writ petition and an application was filed by respondents No. 8 and 9 to implead themselves as on 14.2.2008, which was allowed and the writ petition was ultimately allowed with a direction to hold an inquiry, which in turn was challenged by the petitioners themselves in a writ appeal. Pursuant to the disposal of the writ appeal, an inquiry having been conducted, a report was submitted on 23.8.2008, wherein there was a finding against petitioners No. 2 and 3 having willfully and illegally held a meeting on 17.6.2007 and respondents No. 8 and 9 were the true Committee members. This, it is contended, is the actual and factual position. Pursuant to the disposal of the writ appeal, an inquiry having been conducted, a report was submitted on 23.8.2008, wherein there was a finding against petitioners No. 2 and 3 having willfully and illegally held a meeting on 17.6.2007 and respondents No. 8 and 9 were the true Committee members. This, it is contended, is the actual and factual position. The petitioners however have misconstrued the sequence of events and have falsely claimed to be elected members of the society and since the term of the Managing Committee was completed in the year 2008, an administrator was appointed till the election was conducted. But the said order having been challenged by petitioners No. 2 and 3 in a writ petition and there being an interim order of stay granted as early as on 17.9.2009 and since that continued till date, there is no election and there is no elected body to the society. It is in this situation that there was a controversy as to whether the election conducted by the petitioners herein was valid since the election was conducted even before the expiry of the term of the body elected in the year 2003. 5. The learned Senior Advocate Shri Jayakumar S. Patil, in order to give a quietus to the controversy and to ensure that there is fair election to the Committee has now proposed that assuming that the elected body elected in the year 2006 was invalid, there is no impediment to hold a fresh election and that instead of appointing an administrator, it would be more appropriate if the Registrar were to appoint an observer only for the purpose of conducting the election and this should be done within a time frame, in order that the Society could start functioning smoothly. 6. Having regard to the impleading application on behalf of 8 members out of 250, who are said to have been included as members in the year 1998, but were not allowed to function as members, in that, they were not included in the voters list in respect of the election held in the year 2003 and some of them had approached this court in this regard. There was a direction in WP 10961-968/2009, which was disposed of on 17.4.2009 directing that an inquiry be held insofar as their claim to membership and the same be considered in accordance with law. There was a direction in WP 10961-968/2009, which was disposed of on 17.4.2009 directing that an inquiry be held insofar as their claim to membership and the same be considered in accordance with law. Accordingly, an inquiry was conducted and a report was submitted as on 27.5.2012, that 250 members had been admitted to the membership of the society as early as in the year 1998 and that their names should be included in the voters list in any election that was to be conducted. 7. It is the case of the respondents No. 8 and 9 herein that inclusion of those members would not be permissible particularly in view of the observation of the Division Bench in the writ appeal, to the effect that no new members to be admitted till the inquiry that was directed was completed and therefore the learned Counsel would submit that inclusion of members at this point of time by virtue of report dated 27.5.2012 would not be permissible and would run counter to the direction in the Division Bench judgment. However, the learned Senior Advocate would point out that there is no inclusion of new members at this point of time nor does the report dated 27.5.2012 direct the inclusion of new members. What is recognized is the inclusion of members as early as on 10.11.1998 and there is no inclusion of new members from the date of the report or in the year 2012. In fact, a voters list has been prepared and ironically, the very petitioners and respondents No. 8 and 9 had opposed the inclusion of 250 members. However, in view of the inquiry report submitted, the petitioners have no objection to the 250 members being included in the voters list. Further, the learned counsel would submit that it would be wrong to contend that there are new members being included and it would also not run counter to the judgment of the division bench as sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 8. Further, the learned counsel would submit that it would be wrong to contend that there are new members being included and it would also not run counter to the judgment of the division bench as sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 8. Therefore, it would be in the fitness of things if fresh election is conducted with the list of 401 members including 250 members, on whose behalf an application for impleading has now been filed seeking their inclusion and a voters list prepared during the pendency of this petition, including those 250 members whose membership dates back to the year 1998 is also placed on record. Unfortunately, they were not permitted to participate at the election held in the year 2003 or in 2006. Hence, it would be just and necessary to include their names presently. 9. The learned counsel for respondents 8 and 9 would raise a vehement objection as regards the conduct of the elections to be held pursuant to the disposal of this petition, on the footing that if the petitioners are given a upper hand in the conduct of elections, there is likelihood of malpractices and therefore, he would seek appointment of an administrator to conduct the election. As it would be a long drawn out proceeding for the administrator to be appointed, it would suffice that an observer is appointed and the District Registrar is directed to appoint an Observer to oversee the conduct of the election. The District Registrar shall ensure that neither faction take the initiative in conducting the election. 10. Insofar as finalization of the voters list is concerned, the parties are directed to place the list consisting of 401 members for perusal of the observer along with supporting material and if any member wishes to place any further information as regards the inclusion or deletion in the members list, it is open for such members to do so and for the Observer to take a decision as to finalizing the voters list. The petitioner and respondents No. 8 and 9, shall cooperate with the Observer in ensuring that notices are issued to the members in holding the General Body Meeting and finalization of members list and in conducting elections to the society. This exercise shall be completed within 60 days from today. The petitioner and respondents No. 8 and 9, shall cooperate with the Observer in ensuring that notices are issued to the members in holding the General Body Meeting and finalization of members list and in conducting elections to the society. This exercise shall be completed within 60 days from today. The Registrar is requested to appoint an observer forthwith in any event, within a period of two weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the circumstances, therefore, the appointment of an administrator is rendered redundant and stands quashed. Insofar as the elected body claimed by the petitioners also stands dissolved.