JUDGMENT : (Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.) The General Secretary of the Kottakkal Muslim Jama-ath has filed this writ petition on behalf of the said Jama-ath, challenging the elections proposed to be conducted as per Ext. P2 order issued by the Kerala State Waqf Board. Petitioner also seeks a direction to ensure that the election is conducted strictly in accordance with the bye-laws and the membership list submitted by the Jama-ath on 15.04.2025. 2. The Kottakkal Muslim Jama-ath Committee was elected in the year 2014, and its term expired in 2017. Thereafter, the said Committee is continuing without conducting any elections. Consequently, 15 individuals approached the Kerala State Waqf Board in O.P. No. 269 of 2024 and by order dated 25.03.2025, the second respondent was appointed as the Returning Officer and was directed to conduct elections in a time-bound manner after complying with all procedural requirements. In the meantime, petitioner, who has been continuing as the General Secretary from 2014 onwards, approached this Court alleging that the Returning Officer had inducted strangers as members of the Jama-ath. It is contended that the proposed election, based on the voters list published by the second respondent, is illegal to the extent it has included such newly inducted members, thereby interfering with the conduct of a free and fair election. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent, contending that the attempt of the writ petitioner is to stifle the conduct of the election, contrary to the wishes of the members, and that too without arraying the necessary parties in the writ petition. It is further stated that the representative of petitioner himself was a party to the decision to induct new members, as evidenced by Exts. R2(a) and R2(b), in which the General Secretary of the Jama-ath Committee was a signatory and had raised no objections. 4. We have heard Sri.Muhammed Shafi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Zubair Pulikkool, the learned counsel for the second respondent as well as Sri.Jamsheed Hafeez, the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent. 5. In the decision in Abdul Latheef. 4. We have heard Sri.Muhammed Shafi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Zubair Pulikkool, the learned counsel for the second respondent as well as Sri.Jamsheed Hafeez, the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent. 5. In the decision in Abdul Latheef. C.K. & Others v. K.M.Haneefa & Others [ 2015(3) KLT 299 ], a Division Bench of this Court had observed that an original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking interference in matters relating to elections to Mahal Committee ought not to be entertained as the electoral process ought to be permitted to continue and challenge to an election can be taken up only after the declaration of the results. 6. In the instant case, the last election to the Jama-ath Committee was conducted in 2014. Taking note of the long delay in conducting fresh elections and the continued functioning of the Committee for the past 11 years, the Kerala State Waqf Board directed that elections be conducted within two months and appointed the second respondent as the Returning Officer. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the voters list or the induction of additional members allegedly done in contravention of the bye-laws, it is certainly open to him to initiate appropriate proceedings after the declaration of the election results. 7. It is also pointed out that the election is scheduled to be held on 04.05.2025. On the eve of such elections, it would not be proper for this Court to interfere, particularly when the petitioner has an effective alternate remedy available to him post the election. 8. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision in Election Commission v. Ashok Kumar [ 2000 KHC 642 ] to canvass for the proposition that it is not an inviolable rule that in every case this Court has to keep its hands off when the election is declared. We are of the view that the said decision cannot apply to the facts of the instant case. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.