JUDGMENT : S.G. PANDIT, J. The appellant, a non-party to W.P. No.108820/2025, is before this Court under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, questioning the order dated 26.11.2025 passed in W.P. No.108820/2025, whereunder the learned Single Judge directed the Returning Officer to announce the result forthwith including the votes cast by the petitioners. 2. Petitioners, 573 in numbers, approached the learned Single Judge with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to include the names of the petitioners in the final ‘C’ category individual members eligible voter list, and to permit the petitioners to cast the vote in the election to the committee of Management of respondent No.7-Society scheduled to be held on 23.11.2025 in terms of the Calendar of Events dated 28.10.2025. In terms of the interim order granted by the learned Single Judge, the petitioners have cast their votes in the election to the Committee of Management of respondent No.7-Society. The learned Single Judge having found that exclusion of the petitioners’ names was not proper, allowed the writ petition directing the Returning Officer to announce the result forthwith including the votes cast by the petitioners leaving all contentions open for consideration in appropriate proceedings if commenced. 3. Learned counsel Sri S.A.Sandur would submit that the rigor of Rule 13D-2(A) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules has been complied and there was no occasion for the learned single Judge to issue direction to the respondent Returning Officer to announce the result including the votes cast by the petitioners. 4. It is to be noticed that the appellant is not a party to the writ proceedings. The appellant claims that he was one of the contestants to the Managing Committee of the Society. If that is so, if any dispute arises on announcing the result of the election, it is always open for the appellant to initiate appropriate proceedings. The appellant has no locus to challenge the order of the learned single Judge, more so when the 7 th respondent has not chosen to challenge the learned single Judge’s order. 5. With the above, the writ appeal stands disposed of. 6. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of as they do not survive for consideration.