ORDER : 1. This application, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed against an order, dated 07.11.2017, passed, by learned District Judge, Patna, in Misc. Case No. 173 of 2017, whereby he has allowed the miscellaneous application filed by respondent no. 1, under Article 77 of “the Constitution and Bylaws of Sri Takht Harimandir Ji Patna Saheb, Patna City” (hereinafter referred to as “Bylaws’) and has held the election of new office bearers under Article 31 of the said Bylaws to be illegal on the ground of the same being against the provisions of the Bylaws. The learned District Judge, Patna, has declared the election of the office bearers, held on 03.09.2017, as null and void. 2. Assailing the impugned order, Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, which is Prabandhak Committee of said Sri Takht Harimandir Ji, Patna Saheb, has submitted that the impugned order has been passed under misconception that the said election was held for electing office bearers in pursuance of an earlier order of the learned District Judge, Patna, dated 01.09.2017, passed in Misc. Case No. 150 of 2017. 3. The said respondent no. 1 had approached the learned District Judge, Patna, by filing Misc. Case No. 150 of 2017, seeking direction to the Prabandhak Committee to fix a fresh election date for election of the new Prabandhak Committee, as the term of the present Prabandhak Committee had expired in the month of July, 2017. Learned District Judge, Patna, by the order, dated 01.09.2017, while disposing of Misc. Case No. 150 of 2017, had directed that the parties shall approach the Bihar State Election Authority, Patna, for the purpose of election of Prabandhak Committee. The Bihar State Election Authority, Patna, was, in turn, directed to conduct election of the Prabandhak Committee as soon as possible, preferably within three months. 4. After the said order, dated 01.09.2017, was passed by learned District Judge, Patna, a meeting of the Prabandhak Committee was held on 03.09.2017, electing new office bearers of the Committee. 5. There are two facts, which are not in dispute. The office bearers of the Committee were last elected in February, 2015. The body of the office bearers consists of five-Members, including the President, the Senior Vice President, the Junior Vice President, the General Secretary and the Secretary. 5. There are two facts, which are not in dispute. The office bearers of the Committee were last elected in February, 2015. The body of the office bearers consists of five-Members, including the President, the Senior Vice President, the Junior Vice President, the General Secretary and the Secretary. Article 31 (1) of the Bylaws contemplates that subsequent to election of the office bearers of the Committee under the provision of Article 30 of the Bylaws, the office bearers shall be elected by ballot every two-and-a-half years; the office bearers elected at the first meeting of the Committee shall hold office until new office bearers have been elected at the meeting of the Committee, as described above. The clear mandate of Article 31 of the Bylaws is that the office bearers are to be elected every two-and-half years. The two-and-a-half years’ term of the office bearers admittedly came to an end in August, 2017, the last election having taken place in February, 2015. 6. Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Senior Counsel, in that background, has submitted that the Prabandhak Committee did not have any option, but to elect the office bearers in view of the clear provision under Article 31 of the Bylaws. 7. He has submitted that learned District Judge, Patna, has failed to take note of this aspect and got swayed away by the stand of respondent no. 1 before him that the election was held in breach of the order of the learned District Judge, Patna, whereby the direction was to hold election of Prabandhak Committee, whereas the Prabandhak Committee opted, instead, to hold election of its office bearers. 8. He has submitted that no person aggrieved by the outcome of the election of the office bearers approached the learned District Judge, Patna, and the application filed by respondent no. 1 before the learned District Judge, Patna, without impleading the persons who were elected, as parties, ought to have been outright rejected on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. 9. Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned Senior Counsel, representing respondent no. 1 before the learned District Judge, Patna, without impleading the persons who were elected, as parties, ought to have been outright rejected on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. 9. Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned Senior Counsel, representing respondent no. 1, on the other hand, has submitted, with reference to the documents which have been brought on record along with the counter affidavit, that as a matter of fact, the Prabandhak Committee held its meeting on 03.09.2017 as if there was a direction by learned District Judge, Patna, to hold said meeting for the purpose of electing its office bearers. He has submitted, interpreting Article 31 of the Bylaws, that Article 31 of the Bylaws do not contemplate third election of office bearers and it speaks of only two elections, one on the date of the first meeting of the Prabandhak Committee after election of the Prabandhak Committee and the second after coming to end the terms of the first set of office bearers, as contemplated under Article 30 of the Bylaws. He has next submitted that the meeting for electing office bearers was convened in haste and though the decision to hold meeting on 03.09.2017 was earlier taken on 16.07.2017, it was, subsequently, decided not to hold the meeting on 03.09.2017. However, the Senior Vice President of the Prabandhak Committee, acting in haste, managed to convene a meeting on 03.09.2017 and got the election of its office bearers held, which, according to him, was illegal. He has submitted that election of office bearers is illegal also for the reason that the provisions of the Bylaws mandate that there should be, at least, 15 days’ notice for convening a meeting and in emergent situation, a meeting can be convened on a 5 days’ notice also. He submits that in the present case, the decision to convene a meeting was taken on 30th August, 2017 and, therefore also, the outcome of the said meeting is illegal, being contrary to provisions in the Bylaws. He has also argued that only one day’s notice was given for convening the meeting of the Prabandhak Committee. 10. I find force in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner after having examined Article 31 of the Bylaws that a duty has been cast upon the Prabandhak Committee to elect office bearers, as contemplated under Article 30 of the Bylaws, every two-and-a-half years. 10. I find force in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner after having examined Article 31 of the Bylaws that a duty has been cast upon the Prabandhak Committee to elect office bearers, as contemplated under Article 30 of the Bylaws, every two-and-a-half years. The term of two-and-ahalf years having been completed, the Prabandhak Committee was under obligation to elect the office bearers. 11. The plea that there cannot be third election of the office bearers is not acceptable to me for the reason that whereas, there is requirement under Article 31 of the Bylaws that election of the office bearers shall be held every two-and-ahalf years, so far as the Prabandhak Committee is concerned, its life has been defined in Article 8 of the Bylaws in the following terms: “Every Committee shall continue for five years from the date of its constitution or until a new Committee has been constituted whichever is later”, meaning thereby that whereas a Prabandhak Committee can continue even after completion of five years, until a new Committee is constituted, the Committee has the duty to hold election of office bearers every two-and-ahalf years. 12. From the impugned order, I find that learned District Judge, Patna, has not taken into account these aspects of the matter and has held the election to be illegal, which, I am of the prima facie view, is not correct. 13. In the special facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the petitioner to implead the Bihar State Election Authority, Patna, as respondent no. 7. 14. Let a copy of the writ application and the counter affidavit, complete with annexures, be served on Mr. Mukesh Kumar Thakur, learned Counsel, representing the Bihar State Election Authority. 15. Issue notice to respondent nos. 2 to 6 to show cause as to why this application be not heard and preferably be disposed of at the time of admission itself, for which, requisites etc., under both processes, i.e., ordinary as well as speed post with A/D, must be filed within a period of one week from today, failing which this application, as against the concerned respondents, shall stand rejected without further reference to a Bench. 16. Rule is made returnable within four weeks. 17. No notice need be issued to respondent no. 1 as he has already entered appearance. 18. 16. Rule is made returnable within four weeks. 17. No notice need be issued to respondent no. 1 as he has already entered appearance. 18. In the mean while, there shall be stay of the operation of the impugned order, dated 07.11.2017, passed by learned District Judge, Patna, in Misc. Case No. 173 of 2017.