JUDGMENT Ref: Delay Condonation Application Delay of 26 days is condoned. Application is allowed for the reasons mentioned in affidavit filed in support of Delay Condonation Application. Special Appeal is to be treated filed well within time. Ref: Special Appeal Managing Committee, Madarsa Noorul Islam, Chandpur through its Manager, Mohd. Ali and another are before this Court assailing the validity of the order dated 27th January, 2016 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.7965 of 2011 (Committee of Management, Madarsa Noorul Islam and others vs. State of U.P. and others), proceeding to disapprove the elections of the Committee of Management dated 10th January, 2011 on the premises that the said elections have been held in breach of directions issued by this Court dated 13.05.2009 and further directives have been issued to hold the elections thereafter in accordance with law. From the side of the appellant, it is being sought to be contended before us that Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits had forwarded list of members to the Authorized Controller and based on the same, elections in question has been held and the same has been recognized, in view of this, once valid election has been held, then same ought not to have been set aside and as such, the order passed by the Learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and the election in question should be permitted to hold the field and appellant should be permitted to function accordingly. The claim in question has been resisted on behalf of opposite parties by contending that the election in question has not at all been held as per the spirit of the order passed by this Court, inasmuch as, Authorized Controller has proceeded to accept the list of members without giving notice to the opposite parties or publishing the same on the notice board so that objections could have been called for and the list could have been finalised as such, elections have been held in breach of the mandate of the order dated 13.05.2009 passed by this Court and in view of this, rightful order has been passed by learned Single Judge and no interference is required to be made. After respective arguments have been advanced, the factual situation that is so emerging that in Writ Petition No.25023 of 2009 with the consent of parties on 13th May, 2009 orders have been passed that the Authorized Controller shall assume the charge of the Institution and that he shall after finalizing the list of members in accordance with law, hold elections within six months whereupon elected Committee of Management would assume charge. Thereafter said order was modified on 21.05.2010 wherein it is provided that in case the Authorized Controller is unable to hold elections within six months, he shall be at liberty to apply before this Court for extension of time, which shall be considered on merit. The said decision of learned Single Judge has been subjected to challenge in Special Appeal No.1062 of 2010 but the said Special Appeal in question has been dismissed and the Authorized Controller, in effect, has been permitted to continue to discharge and perform functions of the Committee of Management of the Institution and to hold the elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution as has been directed by this Court. Accepted position is that the Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits had supplied the list on 23.12.2010 of 50 members of the Society and based on the said list in question, election has been purported to have been held on 10.01.2011 and the said election in question has been recognized on the very same day. The fact of the matter is that at no point of time, Authorized Controller, after he has received the list sent by the Assistant Registrar, have ever proceeded to publish the same on the notice board, so that incumbents can file their objections and then after considering the objections, the elections in question could have been held. Accepted position is that the list that has been sent by the Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits has been accepted to be final and based on the same election in question has been held and the same has been recognized by the Authorized Controller/District Minority Welfare Officer. Accepted position is that the list that has been sent by the Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits has been accepted to be final and based on the same election in question has been held and the same has been recognized by the Authorized Controller/District Minority Welfare Officer. Once list was to be finalised by Authorised Controller, then after receipt of list from Assistant Registrar, the said list in question ought to have been published on the notice board and objections in question ought to have been asked for and then after considering the objections so received after finalising list of Members, election in question could have been held and here in the present case, accepted position is that said procedure has not at all been adhered to, whereas the order dated 13th May, 2009 clearly obligated the Authorized Controller to undertake such an exercise. In view of the factual situation that is so emerging, the learned Single Judge has rightly proceeded to non-suit the claim of appellant. In this background, we refuse and refrain ourselves from interfering with the order dated 27th January, 2016 but we hope and trust that Authorized Controller would publish the list of members and thereafter, after finalizing the objections so received, would hold the election as per bye-laws of the Society and as per the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860. Special Appeal is dismissed accordingly.