ORDER 1. Learned counsel as above appears for the contesting respondents No. 1 and 2. 2. Impugned order dated February 20, 2015 has dismissed IA 3513/2015 imposing cost upon the appellants, holding that since the election process has commenced no grievance could be raised to the orders passed by the Election Officer. 3. The second reason is that the order passed by the Election Officer was in consonance with a consent order dated February 05, 2014. 4. On the subject of the Courts adopting a hands of approach when an election process commences, we must at the outset draw a distinction between an election under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and an election to elect office bearers of private bodies. 5. Whereas a result of an election held under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 can be challenged only by way of an election petition, and in the manner prescribed by law, and on the grounds enlisted in the act, the same is not true for ejections to elect office bearers of private bodies and thus the principles in various judicial decisions interpreting the Representation of the People Act, 1951 would not apply to other elections. 6. Though it would be inadvisable for a Court to interdict an election process once it commences to elect office bearer of private bodies, but that does not mean a Court would be debarred from considering a grievance at an ongoing stage of an election. If it is found that the Returning Officer is contesting a sham election, it would be a case of no election in the eyes of law. The Court would intervene. If it is found that under the apparent exercise of power the Returning Officer is so flouting the principle of an election that it warrants minimum corrective action, a Court can intervene. 7. We simply state that pertaining to an issue concerning an election to the office bearers of a private body there is no scope to urge that under no circumstances can a Court intervene. As a matter of policy the Court would be very circumspect in interfering but as a matter of law, the power would exist. 8. An election process commences after a list of valid voters is drawn up. The reason is obvious. As a matter of policy the Court would be very circumspect in interfering but as a matter of law, the power would exist. 8. An election process commences after a list of valid voters is drawn up. The reason is obvious. Unless a person is a voter she cannot contest for a post nor can be a proposer or a seconder. The process of finalising the electoral roll must therefore precede the notification publishing the schedule of the election. 9. The schedule of the election would mean voters to be notified the dates on which the nominations forms can be obtained the date by which the nominations can be filed; the date on which the nominations would be scrutinized; the date on which the list of eligible candidates would be published; followed lastly by the date when the polling would be held and the date on which the counting would take place. 10. The facts of the instant case relevant for our opinion would be that elections were to be held to elect the President of the Akhil Bhartiya Mahajan Shiromani Sabha. The Election Officer, presumably drew up the list of voters i.e. electoral rolls and notified the schedule of election. The notification has not been shown to us. But that would be irrelevant. 11. Concededly, nominations were received and scrutinized with an order being passed on December 30, 2014. The order records that nine valid nominations were received. One was rejected. It was notified that the last date to withdraw nominations is January 09, 2015. 12. The Election Officer has passed an order on January 09, 2014 recording that six out of nine persons had withdrawn their nominations and thus only three remained for which ballots would be cast on February 22, 2015. Surprisingly, the Election Officer has noted that no objection regarding membership of the Akhil Bhartiya Mahajan Shiromani Sabha will be entertained after January 19, 2015. 13. We are little bit surprised for the reason, a valid membership has to be the sine qua non for the electoral roll, which in turn has to be the sine qua non to identify who can nominate or seconder a proposal. 14. 13. We are little bit surprised for the reason, a valid membership has to be the sine qua non for the electoral roll, which in turn has to be the sine qua non to identify who can nominate or seconder a proposal. 14. On January 22, 2015, another order has been passed by the Election Officer recording that two persons out of the three remaining (after six had withdrawn their nominations) had also agreed to withdraw and thus only one person named Jangi Lal Mahajan remained. The order records that Jangi Lal Mahajan is declared as having been elected as the President of the Akhil Bhartiya Mahajan Shiromani Sabha. 15. Something strange has happened thereafter. An application was filed in CS(OS) No. 1719/2012 in which an order by consent was passed that members who have paid the subscription during the extended period of time pursuant to the order dated December 19, 2014 shall be entitled to vote only if they have complied with the procedure stipulated in para, 5 of the order dated February 05, 2014. This has resulted in an order being passed by the Returning Officer on February 14, 2015 that in his opinion only two persons remained to contest the elections. This order was brought to the notice, of the learned Single Judge praying that the ensuing elections i.e. polling be stayed. 16. Whilst it may be true, as contended by learned counsel for the respondent, that the consent order dated February 12, 2015 passed in the suit required the Returning Officer to rework the list of members of the Sabha entitled to vote. But at the same time it cannot be lost sight of that the process had to start de-novo. 17. By de-novo we mean that the Election Officer shall be obliged to draw up a tentative list of voters inviting objections and finalise the same. 18. Thereafter fresh nominations have to be received and scrutinize. 19. List of eligible candidates to contest has to be notified. 20. The facts above noted would show that everything is being conducted in a most haphazard manner. 21. Disposing of the appeal we set aside the impugned order dated February 20, 2015. 22. IA No. 3513/2015 is disposed of directing the Election Officer to recommence the process of election by first publishing the draft list of persons entitled to vote. Objections shall be received. 21. Disposing of the appeal we set aside the impugned order dated February 20, 2015. 22. IA No. 3513/2015 is disposed of directing the Election Officer to recommence the process of election by first publishing the draft list of persons entitled to vote. Objections shall be received. List of voters thereafter would be finalised. Once the list of eligible voters is finalised the next stage of the Election Process would commence by notifying the schedule for the election. 23. No costs. 24. Order be given dasti to counsel for parties under the signatures of court master. CM No. 3509/2015 Dismissed as infructuous.