JUDGMENT 1. In this batch of writ petitions, this Court is called upon to resolve the internal dispute of an Association of Noble Profession of Advocates i.e., the Bengaluru Advocates Association [for short "the Association"]. The Association, which is one of the premiere institution, should have elected the office bearer viz. the Vice- President and Joint Secretary unanimously instead going through the process of election. This would have upheld the dignity of the noble profession of advocacy. It is expected from the elected members of the Association to unite and work together, keeping aside their differences for the welfare and development of the Association. Unfortunately the governing council members and office bearer of the Association are in litigation in these petitions. 2. In W.P.No.4078/2022, Sri.T.G.Ravi, General Secretary of the Association is the petitioner and has prayed for quashing the order passed by the first respondent dtd. 7/2/2022 [Annexure-K] wherein the fourth respondent passed interim order staying the proceedings of the General Secretary dtd. 5/2/2022 and to give effect to the resolution of the General Secretary. 3. In W.P.No.3601/2022, petitioners are the Governing Council Members of the Magistrate Court Unit of the Association and they have also prayed for quashing of the interim order dtd. 7/2/2022 passed by the first respondent. 4. In W.P.No.3619/2022, petitioners are Governing Council Members of the City Civil Court Unit of the Association and they have prayed similar prayers as sought by the petitioner in W.P.No.4078/2022. 5. Since these writ petitions involve the same facts and prayers sought by the petitioners are identical, all these three petitions are clubbed together, heard and disposed of by this common order. 6. Heard the learned senior counsel Sri.D.R.Ravishankar and learned senior counsel Sri.A.S.Ponnanna along with learned counsel Sri.Saravana.S and learned counsel Sri.C.V.Rajashekar for the petitioners; and learned senior counsel Sri.R.S.Ravi for learned counsel Sri.H.H.Mahalingaiah, and learned senior counsel Sri.Suresh S. Lokre for private respondents and Party-in-person Sri.S.Vivek Subba Reddy, Sri.R.Subramanya learned Additional Advocate General along with Smt.Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and 7. 7. The Association consists of four Units i.e., High Court, City Civil Court, Magistrate Court and Mayo Hall Unit. Electorate to each of the Units is separate and they would elect the Councilors to each of the Units. The President, General Secretary and Treasurer are elected by the Electorate from all the Units. 7. The Association consists of four Units i.e., High Court, City Civil Court, Magistrate Court and Mayo Hall Unit. Electorate to each of the Units is separate and they would elect the Councilors to each of the Units. The President, General Secretary and Treasurer are elected by the Electorate from all the Units. The post of Vice- president and Joint Secretary is to be elected by the elected Governing Council Members among themselves for each unit. 8. After COVID-19 pandemic, elections to the office of the President, General Secretary, Treasurer of the Association and Governing Council Members of each unit was held on 19/12/2021 and on the same day, results were declared. In this batch of writ petitions, this Court is concerned with the elections to the post of Vice- president and Joint Secretary to the Magistrate Unit and City Civil Court Unit. The Magistrate Unit consists of five Governing Council Members, whereas the City Civil Court Unit consists of twelve Governing Council Members. The Association is governed by "The Advocates' Association, Bengaluru Bye-Laws" [for short "Bye-Laws"]. Bye-Law 23 provides election of other Office bearer. 9. Learned senior counsel Sri.D.R.Ravishankar submitted that under Bye-Law 23, the General Secretary shall be the Returning Officer for election to the post of Office bearer. The petitioner-General Secretary issued meeting notice dtd. 3/1/2022 fixing the date of meeting as on 10/1/2022 to elect office bearer i.e., Vice-president and Joint Secretary to all the four Units, but the said meeting insofar as Magistrate and City Civil Court units was adjourned at the instance of the President. Some of the Governing Council Members submitted representation to the President/General Secretary to convene meeting of governing council to elect office bearer, as per Annexures- C and C1. Based on such request, petitioner-General Secretary had convened meeting of the Magistrate Unit on 14/2/2022 under communication dtd. 31/1/2022 at Annexure-D and meeting of the Governing Council Members of the City Civil Court unit on 16/2/2022 under Communication dtd. 31/1/2022 at Annexure-D1. It is submitted that when once the General Secretary had issued meeting notice, the President had no power or jurisdiction to issue Annexure-E/meeting notice dtd. 1/2/2022 in exercise of his power under 27(d) of Bye- Laws. Referring to Bye-Law 27(d), learned senior counsel would submit that within seven days as required, the petitioner-General Secretary had issued the meeting notice convening the meeting on 14th and 16th of February 2022. 1/2/2022 in exercise of his power under 27(d) of Bye- Laws. Referring to Bye-Law 27(d), learned senior counsel would submit that within seven days as required, the petitioner-General Secretary had issued the meeting notice convening the meeting on 14th and 16th of February 2022. Therefore, the meeting notice issued by the President at Annexure-E was challenged before the first respondent and first respondent in exercise of his powers under 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (for short "1960 Act"), stayed holding of meeting on 5/2/2022. On the same day, by another order, the first respondent- Registrar withdrew the interim order passed and allowed the respondents to conduct the meeting as scheduled. It is submitted that on 5/2/2022, the petitioner-General Secretary recorded the proceedings as at Annexure-G1, which according to the learned senior counsel is the proper resolution. Learned senior counsel also points out that President also recorded proceedings as per Annexure- G on 5/2/2022. Both the proceedings by General Secretary as well as the President, elected Vice-president and Joint Secretary to both units at Magistrate and City Civil Court. 10. Learned senior counsel Sri.D.R.Ravishankar referring to Bye-law 23 contended that General Secretary of the Association shall be the Returning Officer for the purpose of election of Vice-president and Joint Secretary of the respective Units and therefore, the proceedings of the General Secretary would hold good and the resolution passed by the President in a separate proceedings cannot be given any credence. It is also submitted that the President had no power to convene meeting in exercise of Clause 27(d) of the Bye-Laws, when the General Secretary had already convened meeting by issuing meeting notice dtd. 31/1/2022. Further, it is submitted that if the General Secretary had failed to convene the meeting, then the President could have exercised his power under Bye- Law 27(d). 11. Learned senior counsel Sri.D.R.Ravishankar as well as learned senior counsel A.S.Ponnanna would submit that first respondent-Registrar acted in total violation of provisions of the 1960 Act and acted as if he is not governed by any law. Both the learned senior counsel point out that first respondent - Registrar had no power to issue any interim order under Sec. 25 of the 1960 Act in a proceedings of enquiry. Both the learned senior counsel point out that first respondent - Registrar had no power to issue any interim order under Sec. 25 of the 1960 Act in a proceedings of enquiry. It is also submitted that the Registrar under Sec. 25 of the 1960 Act has limited power to submit enquiry report and the first respondent- Registrar has no power to issue any directions. In that regard, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Amia Vilas Swami and Others V/s. Shnkha Brita Das and Others [2008 [3] KLJ 16]. Both the learned senior counsel would submit that the word "convene" found in Bye-Law 27(d) would mean that, within seven days, the General Secretary shall take action to convene the meeting and it would not mean that the meeting shall be conducted within seven days. Thus, they prayed to allow the writ petitions and declare the proceedings dtd. 5/2/2022 and resolution of the General Secretary of the Association as valid resolution. 12. Per contra, learned senior counsel Sri.R.S.Ravi for respondent Nos.2 and 3 referring to Annexure-G1 submits that election is not conducted by the General Secretary, but it was presided over by one Sri.S.Raghunath Gowda, senior Governing Council Member. Hence, the proceedings drawn by the General Secretary on 5/2/2022 cannot be recognized as a valid resolution. Further, it is contended that General Secretary had failed to convene meeting within seven days from the date of requisition as at Annexures-C and C1 dtd. 25/1/2022 and 27/1/2022 to elect the office bearer, within seven days from the date of receipt of such requisition. Therefore, the meeting convened by the President is in accordance with law and as such the proceedings dtd. 5/2/2022 drawn by the President is proper and correct. 13. Learned senior counsel Sri.S.Suresh Lokre also supported the submission of the learned senior counsel Sri.R.S.Ravi. 14. The fourth respondent/party-in-person submitted that Bye-Law 27(d) requires the General Secretary to convene/conduct the meeting on the requisition of the governing council members within seven days from the date of receipt of such requisition, failure to convene/conduct such meeting empowers the President to convene the meeting any time thereafter and transact the business for which it was requisitioned and such meeting shall be deemed to be a duly convened meeting. It is submitted that since the General Secretary failed to convene meeting within seven days either on 25/1/2022 and 27/1/2022, the President convened the meeting which is proper and in accordance with Bye-Law 27(d) of the Bye-Laws. Further, he points out from Annexure-G1 that there was no quorum as required under Bye-Law 31(h). As there was no quorum for the General Secretary meeting, the same cannot be considered as proper meeting to elect the office bearer. The resolution at Annexure-G1 is not recognized nor is in accordance with the Bye-Laws of the Association. 15. The Bangalore Advocates Association is registered under the provisions of the 1960 Act. The Association is governed by the memorandum of Bye-Laws i.e., the Advocates Association, Bangalore Bye-Laws. The Association consists of four units i.e., High Court, City Civil Court, Mayo Hall and Magistrate Court units. The Association is administered by the Governing Council which consists of the following: "19. COMPOSITION OF THE COUNCIL: The Governing Council shall consist of the following: a) The President. b) The General Secretary. c) The Treasurer. d) Seven Councillors elected by the High Court Unit. e) Twelve Councillors elected by the City Civil Court Unit. f) Five Councillors, elected by the Mayo Hall Court Unit. g) Five Councillors elected by the Magistrate Court Unit. h) Advocate General of Karnataka, Ex- officio. i) Chairman of the Bar Council of Karnataka, Ex-Officio. j) Immediate past President and General Secretary as Ex-officio." 16. The President, General Secretary and Treasurer are elected by secret ballet by all the members of the Association. The Councillors to each unit are also elected by secret ballet by the members of the respective unit. The Vice-President and the Joint Secretary for each unit shall be elected by the Councillors of the respective unit. 17. The President, the General Secretary, the Treasurer and the Governing Council Members to each unit were elected in the elections held on 19/12/2021. In this batch of writ petitions, petitioners are before this Court with regard to election of Vice-president and Joint Secretary to Magistrate as well as City Civil Court units. The General Secretary by Annexure-B issued meeting notice dtd. 3/1/2022 convening the meeting of Executing Committee Members/Governing Council Members on 10/1/2022 to elect Vice-president and Joint Secretary to all the four units. The meeting is said to have been adjourned on 10/1/2022 insofar as Magistrate Court and City Civil Court units. 18. The General Secretary by Annexure-B issued meeting notice dtd. 3/1/2022 convening the meeting of Executing Committee Members/Governing Council Members on 10/1/2022 to elect Vice-president and Joint Secretary to all the four units. The meeting is said to have been adjourned on 10/1/2022 insofar as Magistrate Court and City Civil Court units. 18. The Governing Council Members under Annexure-C dtd. 25/1/2022 and Annexure-C1 dtd. 27/1/2022 submitted requisition to President/General Secretary to convene the meeting of Governing Council to elect the Vice-president and Joint Secretary to Magistrate and City Civil Court units. Under Bye-Law 27(c), the General Secretary may and on the requisition by the President or five Councilors shall at any time convene the meeting of the council. Bye-Law 27(d) reads as follows: "d) If the General Secretary does not convene the requisitioned meeting within 7 days from the date of receipt of the requisition, the President or the requisitionate may convene the meeting any time thereafter and transact the business for which it was requisitioned, such meeting shall be deemed to be a duly convened meeting." Reading of the above Bye-Law abundantly makes it clear that the General Secretary is required to convene the requisitioned meeting within seven days from the date of receipt of the requisition, failing which the President or the requisitionate may convene the meeting anytime thereafter and transact the business for which it was requisitioned. In other words, the General Secretary is required to hold meeting within seven days from the date of receipt of requisition, failing which the President could requisition or convene the meeting. 19. Learned Senior counsel Sri.D.R.Ravishankar and Sri.A.S.Ponnanna to justify the meeting notice dtd. 31/1/2022 convening the meeting of the Governing Council fixing the date of meeting as 14/2/2022 and 16/2/2022 in pursuance of the requisition, stressed on the word convene found in bye-law 27(d). Further, they submitted that convene would not mean that the meeting is to be held within 7 days from the date of receipt of requisition, but it would mean taking steps to convene the meeting within the stipulated time. But the said argument cannot be accepted on the face of it. In P.Ramanath Iyer's, the Law Lexicon meaning of the word "convene" is as follows: "Convene. Summon an assembly or meeting; convention. But the said argument cannot be accepted on the face of it. In P.Ramanath Iyer's, the Law Lexicon meaning of the word "convene" is as follows: "Convene. Summon an assembly or meeting; convention. 'To convene' a meeting under the Municipalities Act means to call together or to assemble, and not issue notice, for the meeting of the members. AIR 1940 Nag.293. "Convene" and "Summon." "There is an obvious difference between 'convened' and 'summoned' ..... 'convened' is applied, properly, not to individuals but to aggregate bodies. A Board is 'convened'; an Assembly is 'convened'; a Senate is 'convened'; but a person is not 'convened', he is 'summoned', warned or noticed." The word 'convene' meaning is "summon an Assembly or meeting". Therefore, bye-law 27(d) mandates holding of a meeting or convening a meeting within 7 days from the date of receipt of requisition by the General Secretary or President as the case may be. The Division Bench of Bombay High Court in a case reported in 1964 SCC Online Bom 32 in the case of POPAT RAGHO PATIL v/s DAMU SHANKAR PATIL was considering Sec. 72 of Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961. Sec. 72 provides for the motion of no-confidence against the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Panchayat Samitis. Sub-sec. (1) requires that a motion of no- confidence in either of these two officials must be made by a requisition of not less than one-fourth of the total number of members after giving notice in the prescribed form. On giving a notice, sub-Sec. (2) requires that the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti shall convene a special meeting of the Panchayat Samiti to consider such motion within 10 days of receipt of the notice and the crucial question involved in the petition was whether the Chairman did comply with sub-Sec. (2) and whether he convened a special meeting of the Panchayat Samiti as prescribed thereunder. It is held that the convene implies that the Chairman must call that body together before the expiry of 10 days from the date of receipt of notice. Otherwise, he is not complying with the other requirements of law. The relevant portion at paragraphs 8, 9 and 17 reads as follows: "8. On behalf of the petitioner emphasis was laid upon the words used in Sub-sec. Otherwise, he is not complying with the other requirements of law. The relevant portion at paragraphs 8, 9 and 17 reads as follows: "8. On behalf of the petitioner emphasis was laid upon the words used in Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 72 , "The Chairman of a Panchayat Samiti shall convene a special meeting...within ten days of the receipt of the notice." It was argued that all that the chairman did within the prescribed ten days was to issue notices of meetings for April 15 and 16, 1964, and that he did not "convene" the special meeting of the Panchayat Samiti as he was required to do under law. On behalf of the chairman Mr. Vaidya has, on the other hand, submitted that by issuing the notices on March 11, 1964, the chairman had convened special meetings of the Panchayat Samiti and he had, therefore, fully complied with the requirement of Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 72 . 9. That leads us to a consideration of the meaning of the word "convene" as used in Sub- sec. (2) as also in Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 72 . It is nowhere defined and obviously, therefore, it must carry the normal connotation that it carries in the English language. In the Oxford Dictionary, Vol. II, the word "convene" has been shown to carry several shades of meaning e.g. (a) to come or bring together (b) of a collective body : to assemble for united action; to meet in a convention. Where it is used as a transitive verb, the meaning is given as "to cause to come together; to convoke" and the illustrations given there are "with all due speed I will convene The Doctors of Theology" and "Fifty Bishops of the neighbouring dioceses were convened". In the case of collective bodies or an assembly or a meeting, the illustration is given, "The Senate was convened by the tribunes." Considering any one or more of these shades of meaning, it is clear that the expression "convene" cannot apply exclusively to the mere giving of a notice to call a body together, but that there is implicit in any shade of meaning of the word "convene" the idea of actually calling together that association or body of individuals. Reference was also made to Stroud 's Judicial Dictionary, Vol. I, page 624. Reference was also made to Stroud 's Judicial Dictionary, Vol. I, page 624. But there, the meaning is not explained, but one aspect of that meaning has been stressed which assists in the construction of the sec. before us. It has thus been explained, "There is an obvious difference between 'convened' and 'summoned'...'convened' is applied, properly, not to individuals but, to aggregate bodies. A Board is 'convened'; an Assembly is 'convened'; a Senate is 'convened'; but A. is not 'convened,' he is 'summoned, warned, or noticed'. 17. In our opinion, the expression, "convene a special meeting of the Panchayat Samiti" in Sub- sec. (2) and Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 72 clearly implies that the chairman must call that body together before the expiry of ten days from the receipt of si notice, otherwise he is not complying with that requirement of the law. Upon the facts which we have already stated, it is clear beyond doubt that there was a failure on the part of the chairman to convene the meeting as required by law. We must, therefore, hold that respondent No. 1 failed to perform his duty under Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 72 . If that be so, then it is not in dispute that the provisions of Sub-sec. (4) would come into play and Sub-sec. (4) provides that if no such meeting is convened by the chairman within the period prescribed, then the members who had given the notice of motion of no-confidence may call upon the commissioner to convene a special meeting of the Panchayat Samiti. It is also not in dispute here that the commissioner was so called upon, but he did not comply with the requisition of the petitioner and others, because of the view which he took that, the chairman had acted within his powers-a view which we have already held was erroneous. In that view, it must also be held that the commissioner failed to perform his duty as required by the latter part of Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 72 . That sub-sec. says that "...The Commissioner shall, within ten days of the receipt of such communication by him, convene the special meeting of the Panchayat Samiti for the consideration of the motion at the office of the Panchayat Samiti at a time appointed by him, and shall authorise such person as he deems fit to preside over such meeting". 20. That sub-sec. says that "...The Commissioner shall, within ten days of the receipt of such communication by him, convene the special meeting of the Panchayat Samiti for the consideration of the motion at the office of the Panchayat Samiti at a time appointed by him, and shall authorise such person as he deems fit to preside over such meeting". 20. In the case on hand, Governing Council Members of Magistrate Court Unit submitted requisition dtd. 25/1/2022 to the President/General Secretary, whereas the Governing Council Members of City Civil Court Unit submitted requisition dtd. 27/1/2022 to the President/General Secretary requesting to convene meeting of Governing Council Members to elect office bearer. In terms of the requisition and Bye-Law 27(d), the General Secretary was required to convene/hold meeting of Governing Council within seven days from 25/1/2022 in respect of Magistrate Court unit and within seven days from 27/1/2022 in respect of City Civil Court unit. But, the General Secretary issued meeting notice dtd. 31/1/2022 fixing the date of meeting as 14/2/2022 insofar as Magistrate Court unit and 16/2/2022 insofar as City Civil Court unit to elect the office bearer, which is contrary to Bye-Law 27(d) of the Association. Issuing meeting notice within seven days from the date of requisition is not the requirement, but holding and conducting the meeting within seven days is the requirement. 21. On failure of the General Secretary to conduct or hold the meeting within seven days from the date of requisition dtd. 25/1/2022 and 27/1/2022, the President by notice dtd. 1/2/2022 in exercise of his power under Bye-Law 27(d) convened the meeting of Governing Council to elect Office bearer to Magistrate Court and City Civil Court Units fixing the date of meeting as 5/2/2022. The President is justified in convening the meeting on the failure of the General Secretary to convene the meeting within seven days in terms of Bye-Law 27(d). 22. Two members of the Governing Council presented a petition under Sec. 25 of 1960 Act before the first respondent challenging both the notices issued by General Secretary and President convening the meeting on 5/2/2022 as well as 16/2/2022. The first respondent on 3/2/2022 initially purporting to be in exercise of power under 1960 Act and Rules passed interim order staying holding of the meeting on 5/2/2022 and meeting convened on 16/2/2022. The first respondent on 3/2/2022 initially purporting to be in exercise of power under 1960 Act and Rules passed interim order staying holding of the meeting on 5/2/2022 and meeting convened on 16/2/2022. Subsequently on 5/2/2022, the first respondent on the motion of respondents withdrew the interim order granted on 3/2/2022 and allowed the respondent-Association to conduct the meeting as scheduled. 23. It is contended that the first respondent- Registrar is not conferred with the power to pass interim order under Sec. 25 of 1960 Act. Under Sec. 25 of 1960 Act, the Registrar is conferred with power to enquire into the constitution, working and financial condition of a registered Society on his own motion or on the application of majority of members of the governing body or not less than 1/3rd of the members of the Society. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider identical contention as to whether the Registrar is conferred with power to grant or pass any interim order in the case of very same petitioner i.e., ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION, BANGALORE V/S DISTRICT REGISTRAR AND REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT AND OTHERS reported in 2006 SCC OnLine Kar 275. In the above case, on behalf of the Association, it was contended that assuming that suo-motu power could be exercised by the Registrar, but that itself will not empower the Registrar in injuncting or granting interim order withholding elections. While answering the above issue, this Court at paragraph 22 has observed as follows: "22. ................... But however what is more important and relevant is that if certain material irregularities are brought to the notice of the Registrar and if he is of the opinion that granting of an interim order pending disposal of the enquiry is in furtherance of final order to be passed, I am of the considered view that the power can be traced under Sec. 25 itself regarding enquiry. It is trite to say that the authority who is supposed to hold an enquiry does not have the power to grant an interim order, even though it cannot be traced to any of the provisions of the Act would be a mockery of the situation. It is trite to say that the authority who is supposed to hold an enquiry does not have the power to grant an interim order, even though it cannot be traced to any of the provisions of the Act would be a mockery of the situation. Apparently the Registrar in the case on hand prima facie was of the opinion that certain facts which are brought to his notice would require an enquiry and such an enquiry requires that any action which is likely to take place will have to be suspended. Consequently, I am of the view that the Registrar has got power to grant an interim order in aid of the final relief." The co-ordinate Bench has held that the Registrar has got power to grant an interim order in the aid of final relief, under Sec. 25 of 1960 Act. But, in the case on hand, granting of interim order and vacating the interim order on 3/2/2022 and on 5/2/2022 by the first respondent- Registrar is wholly unreasonable and lacks confidence of this Court. An authority which is conferred power to discharge public duty under a statute must act in accordance with the provisions of the Act and more so, reasonably and fairly. The Registrar cannot act or perform his statutory duty at the dictate of parties to the proceedings. 24. In pursuance of the meeting notice issued by the President in exercise of his power under bye-law 27(d) required the Governing Council to meet on 5/2/2022, pursuant to the meeting notice dtd. 1/2/2022. Annexure-G1 is the resolution dtd. 5/2/2022 drawn by the General Secretary presided over by a senior governing council member Sri.S.Raghunath Gowda. The resolution would indicate that the Joint Secretary and Vice-President to both the City Civil Court and Magistrate Court units were elected. Annexure-J is the resolution dtd. 5/2/2022 drawn by the President wherein Vice-President and Joint Secretary to both City Civil Court and Magistrate Court units were elected. The Vice-President and Joint Secretary elected in the meeting said to have been conducted by the President, moved the first respondent-Registrar in DRB 103/2021-22 challenging the resolution dtd. 5/2/2022 drawn by the General Secretary vide Annexure-G1. The first respondent- Registrar by interim order dtd. 7/2/2022 stayed the resolution of the General Secretary dtd. 5/2/2022 and elections to the post of Vice-President and Joint Secretary. Both the resolutions dtd. 5/2/2022 drawn by the General Secretary vide Annexure-G1. The first respondent- Registrar by interim order dtd. 7/2/2022 stayed the resolution of the General Secretary dtd. 5/2/2022 and elections to the post of Vice-President and Joint Secretary. Both the resolutions dtd. 5/2/2022 at Annexure-G1 drawn by the General Secretary and Annexure-J drawn by the President lacks authority. Both the resolutions would not indicate whether there was quorum or not. Even though the resolution at Annexure-J by the President contains signature of 16 Governing Council members, it would not inspire confidence of this Court and election procedure is not followed. The President and General Secretary could not have conducted common meeting to elect office bearers to Magistrate and City Civil Court units, since both are two separate independent Units. Separate meeting to each of the unit ought to have been held to elect Vice-President and Joint Secretary from among governing council members of each unit. Moreover, the President-Party-in-person during the course of his submission, submitted that irrespective of the election of Vice-President and Joint Secretary under Annexure-J resolution, the Association is ready and willing to conduct fresh elections to the post of Vice- President and Joint Secretary, both to City Civil Court and Magistrate Court units. Bye-law 29(c) requires the proceedings of the meeting to be recorded in the Minutes book maintained for that purpose. The resolution of the President is not in the Minutes Book maintained for that purpose. Even though the Minutes recorded by the General Secretary is said to be in the Minutes Book maintained for that purpose, the original Minutes Book is not produced. Moreover, the resolution at Annexure-G1 by the General Secretary would not indicate who are the members present and how many governing council members of each unit participated in the election process of Vide-President and General Secretary of both the City Civil Court and Magistrate Court units. The number of members present shown in the attendance book would not be sufficient to say that all the members participated in the election process. All persons who attend the meeting may not participate in all the subjects indicated in the Agenda. In the above circumstances and in the peculiar facts of the present case, both the resolutions at Annexure-G1 by the General Secretary and Annexure-J by the President are contrary to the bye-laws. 25. All persons who attend the meeting may not participate in all the subjects indicated in the Agenda. In the above circumstances and in the peculiar facts of the present case, both the resolutions at Annexure-G1 by the General Secretary and Annexure-J by the President are contrary to the bye-laws. 25. Since this Court has come to the conclusion that Annexure-G1 and Annexure-J resolutions of the General Secretary as well as President respectively, is contrary to the Bye-Laws, the proceedings under Annexure-K in DRB.No.103/2021-22 would no more survive for consideration. 26. For the reasons recorded above, writ petition is partly allowed. The petitioner-General Secretary is directed to conduct elections to the post of Vide-president and Joint Secretary of both the City Civil Court and Magistrate Court units afresh in accordance with the Bye-Laws, within fifteen days from today. Sd/- JUDGE NC/mpk/* CT:bms SGPJ 22/7/2022 ORDER ON BEING SPOKEN TO The writ petition was disposed on 19/7/2022 directing the General Secretary of the Association to conduct elections to the post of Vice-President and Joint Secretary to both City Civil Court and Magistrate Court units, in accordance with the bye-laws, within 15 days from the date of the order. Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the General Secretary is not in station; he is out of Country and he would be returning only on 8/8/2022. Therefore, a request is made to extend the time to conduct elections as directed. Taking note of the above fact, I deem it appropriate to direct the General Secretary to conduct elections as directed, on or before 15/8/2022.