JUDGMENT : [Judgment was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.] Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of the learned Judge dated 13.03.2018 made in W.P.No.21925 of 2017 is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. The writ petitioner Pondicherry State Badminton (Shuttle) Association is the appellant before us. The appellant/Association is a registered society under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. Admittedly, it is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The order passed by the 1st respondent/Senior Superintendent of Police, Puducherry is for a limited purpose relating to law and order issues. The order of the Senior Superintendent of Police is no way connected with the conduct of elections or term for the office bearers of the elected body. 2. All such affairs relating to administration of the Association is governed under the bylaws approved. The bylaws of the association must be approved by the competent authority under the Societies Registration Act. The administration has to follow the bylaws scrupulously for conducting elections. 3. All India Badminton Association is regulating the affairs of the State Association. Therefore, their regulations are binding on the associations, since the Puducherry State Badminton Association is recognised by the All India Badminton Association. 4. The dispute relating to election and management of the association cannot be adjudicated by the High Court in a writ proceeding. The order passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police in proceedings dated 20.07.2017 and the consequential notice dated 10.08.2017 lost its relevance on account of efflux of time. An Interim Administrator had been appointed by the High Court in order to neutralise the situation, which was prevailing during the relevant point of time. However, on account of lapse of several years, the continuance of Interim Administrator is not preferable. The Association has to function in accordance with the bylaws and the elections are to be conducted by following due procedures as contemplated under the bylaws. 5. Mr.Kandhan Duraisami, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the period of four years as contemplated under the bylaws expired. 6. Mr.M.Loganathan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent would oppose by stating that the period can be extended by the general body. 5. Mr.Kandhan Duraisami, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the period of four years as contemplated under the bylaws expired. 6. Mr.M.Loganathan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent would oppose by stating that the period can be extended by the general body. However, these disputed facts are to be adjudicated in the manner known to law or the aggrieved person has to approach the Competent Civil Court of law for the purpose of resolving the issues. 7. In view of the fact that the writ itself is not maintainable with reference to the election disputes, which all are raised before this Court. Thus, we are not inclined to grant any relief. In view of the fact that the Interim Administrator is appointed by the Writ Court, we are inclined to interfere. Consequently, the writ order dated 13.03.2018 passed in W.P.No.21925 of 2017 is set aside. The parties are at liberty to conduct election in accordance with the bylaws and in the event of disputes they are at liberty to approach the Competent Civil Court of Law. 8. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the Government Pleader, Puducherry produced the original records to the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Madras and to the Interim Administrator. Therefore, Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Madras and the Interim Administrator are directed to hand over the files to the Government Pleader enabling them to hand over the same, to the concerned parties. 9. With the above directions, the Writ Appeal stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.