ORDER : SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J. 1. Sri. Mahesh Patil, who has filed caveat for respondent No. 2 accepts notice for respondent No. 3 also. 2. Sri. Mallikarjun Sahukar, learned HCGP accepts notice for respondent No. 1. 3. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for a certiorari to quash the endorsements dated 30.01.2021 vide Annexures-E1 to E6 issued by respondent No. 3 as also for a mandamus directing respondent No. 3 to receive the nomination papers of the petitioners. 4. The petitioners claim to be the members of the respondent No. 2. This Court, vide its order dated 11.01.2021 in WP No. 226372/2020 and connected matters, taking note of the fact that the petitioners therein who wanted to participate in the electoral process were deprived of their right to do so on account of respondent No. 2 having reinitiated the electoral process from the stage of scrutiny of the nomination forms even though the stage at which the election had stopped was the date on which nomination forms had to be submitted, has categorically directed at Para 13.8 thereof that the electoral process would recommence from the stage that it was stopped i.e., on 14.03.2020 permitting the petitioners therein and other similarly situated persons of the respondent No. 3 - Society to collect and file their nomination. 5. Despite the petitioners having submitted their request to participate in the electoral process and seeking for issuance of nomination, forms on 30.01.2021, respondent No. 3 by way of endorsements dated 30.01.2021 has stated that only the petitioners in W.P. No. 226372/2020 and other connected matters would be eligible to submit their nomination. The right to submit their nomination is restricted to the petitioners in the earlier Writ Petitions. 6. The said interpretation sought to be given by respondent No. 3 to the aforesaid orders passed by this Court is completely misconceived. If not for Sri. Mahesh Patil, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitting that it is a mistake. This Court would have been constrained to believe that the same is malafide. 7. Be that as it may. It is but required that all the members of the Society are provided equal opportunity to participate in the electoral process either by contesting or voting. 2 and 3 submitting that it is a mistake. This Court would have been constrained to believe that the same is malafide. 7. Be that as it may. It is but required that all the members of the Society are provided equal opportunity to participate in the electoral process either by contesting or voting. In the present case, the petitioners' request to file nomination having been rejected on the ground that they were not the petitioners in the earlier Writ Petitions, the same is completely unsustainable. 8. Sri. Mahesh Patil, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 would submit that since the Calendar of events had already been issued, if this Court were to intercede in the matter, there would be considerable delay in the election affecting the members of the Society can only be observed for the purpose of rejection inasmuch as the Society is made for the members and not the members for the Society. All the members of the Society are required to be provided an equal opportunity to contest in the elections. 9. The rejection ex facie being improper and not in accordance with the decision of this Court in WP No. 226372/2020 and connected matters, the endorsements dated 30.01.2021 issued at Annexures-E1 to E6 are hereby quashed by issuance of a certiorari. A mandamus is issued to respondent No. 3 to receive all request for nomination forms submitted by any of the members of the Society wanting to contest the election irrespective of whether they were petitioners in WP No. 226372/2020 and connected matters or the present Writ Petition and issue the same expeditiously. Accordingly, if there is a requirement to reissue a Calendar of events, the respondent No. 3 shall reissue the Calendar of events and go ahead with the electoral process. 10. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of.