JUDGMENT (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed to grant leave to the petitioner to file third party writ appeal against the order dated 28.10.2021 passed in W.P.No.5086 of 2019 on the file of this Court.) Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J. 1. The application seeking leave to appeal has been submitted to challenge the judgment dated 28.10.2021. The application has been submitted in reference to a writ petition preferred by the petitioner and pending consideration before the Single Bench, but ignoring the aforesaid, the present writ petition, i.e., W.P.No.5086 of 2019, was decided, which would be affecting the outcome of the writ petition preferred by the applicant. 2. A reference of prayer in the writ petition preferred by the applicant has been given. It is submitted that the direction given by the learned Single Judge in the present writ petition is going to affect his writ petition and otherwise in ignorance of the Tamil Nadu Regulations under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. Reference of Section 28 has been given for the aforesaid. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays, accordingly, to grant leave to maintain the appeal. 3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. 4. The writ petition preferred by the petitioner being W.P.No.16680 of 2017, contains the following prayers:- " To issue writ of mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd respondent to take action against the 4th and 5th respondents on the basis of the representation given by the petitioner dated 17.03.2017 10.04.2017 and de-recognize and cancel the registration of the Coimbatore District Textile Workers Union" And " To grant an order of interim injunction restraining the 2nd respondent in any manner approving or processing the office bearer list sent by the 4th respondent and 5th respondent dated 28.04.2017 pending disposal of the writ petition." The prayers aforesaid were made in reference to the list of office bearers sent on 28.04.2017 and accordingly, to consider the representations made by the petitioner on 17.03.2017 and 10.04.2017. 5. The issue decided in the present writ petition, i.e., W.P.No.5086 of 2019, was not in reference to any of the prayers made by the petitioner in the writ petition preferred by him rather it was on denial of amendments to the bye-laws by the Registrar ignoring his jurisdiction under Rule 15 (1) of the Regulations under the Act of 1926. The issue decided in the present writ petition, i.e., W.P.No.5086 of 2019, was not in reference to any of the prayers made by the petitioner in the writ petition preferred by him rather it was on denial of amendments to the bye-laws by the Registrar ignoring his jurisdiction under Rule 15 (1) of the Regulations under the Act of 1926. The learned Single Judge found that the Registrar had overstepped his powers and accordingly, while quashing the order dated 26.12.2018, a direction was given to the respondents to register the amendments. 6. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge is not in conflict to the prayers made by the petitioner in his writ petition and otherwise, the applicant could not show any illegality in the order. The applicant has challenged in his writ petition the list of office bearers sent on 28.04.2017, which is yet to be adjudicated, thus, whoever may be the office bearers they are within their rights to seek amendment in the bye-laws as per the Regulations, which cannot be denied merely on the ground that a challenge to the list of office bearers has been made and would sustain and thereby, the amendments sought by them should not be permitted when no interim order exists against the functions of the office bearers. If the writ petition of the applicant is ultimately allowed and a new team of office bearers comes in, they would be well within their rights to nullify the amendment or seek amendment as per the provisions of law and thereupon to be examined by the Registrar. But, at present, we do not find any ground to allow the application for grant of leave. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition seeking leave to appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Writ Appeal is rejected at the SR stage.