ORDER : S Sunil Dutt Yadav, J. 1. I.A.Nos.2/2025 and 3/2025 have been filed by the applicants seeking to be impleaded as additional respondents in Writ Petition No.17599/2025. It is stated that the impleading applicants have an interest in the subject matter of the Writ Petition and at the instance of petitioner in W.P.No.17599/2025 who hails from Magadi Taluk Constituency, the entirety of the election to the State ought not to be tinkered with. 2. I.A.No.4/2025 has been filed in W.P.No.17599/2025 on 04.07.2025 seeking for vacation of the interim order passed on 02.07.2025 or modify the orders appropriately as sought for in the Writ Petition by restricting the interim orders only to Magadi Taluk Constituency. 3. By virtue of the interim order passed on 02.07.2025, which order was passed as a common order relating to the proceedings in W.P.No.19109/2025 c/w W.P.No. 17599/2025 and W.P.No.17958/2025. 4. At the outset, it must be noticed that the three Writ Petitions referred to above relate to the proposed elections to be conducted to the Karnataka Rajya Gangamathastara Sangha®. 5. W.P.No.17599/2025 has been filed seeking for a relief not to proceed with the election process in terms of the Notification/Calendar of Events dated 12.06.2025 unless the Voters' List at Annexure-'B' is updated in terms of the objections filed. 6. W.P.No.17958/2025 has been filed seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari to set aside the Election Notification dated 12.06.2025 at Annexure-'F', including the other reliefs relating to Enquiry Reports. 7. W.P.No.19109/2025 has been filed seeking for issuance of writ of mandamus to set aside the final list of candidates at Annexure-'F'. 8. This Court had passed an order taking up the above said Writ Petitions together on 02.07.2025, prior to which, W.P.No.17599/2025 was taken up on various dates, including 24.06.2025. The order passed on 24.06.2025 is as follows:- "Learned AGA accepts notice for respondents. In light of the submission made that the directions of the Coordinate Bench regarding the rectification of voters list has not been complied with as made in W.P.No.24137/2024, the calendar of events issued is subject to orders to be passed. List this matter in 'Preliminary Hearing' list on 26.06.2025." 9. On various dates when the matter was called, the Administrator was also present. 10. The order on 02.07.2025 was passed after a detailed hearing, which reads as follows:- "W.P.Nos.19109/2025, W.P.No.17599/2025 and W.P.No.17958/2025 are taken up together. List this matter in 'Preliminary Hearing' list on 26.06.2025." 9. On various dates when the matter was called, the Administrator was also present. 10. The order on 02.07.2025 was passed after a detailed hearing, which reads as follows:- "W.P.Nos.19109/2025, W.P.No.17599/2025 and W.P.No.17958/2025 are taken up together. Learned AGA accepts notice for respondents 1 and 2. Issue emergent notice to respondent No.3. It is submitted that the election is slated on 06.07.2025. Sri. Vivek Subba Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.17599/2025 has drawn the attention to the order at Annexure-E and points out the context in which the administrator was appointed apart from certain other aspects was non- holding of election, despite the lapse of 5½ years. It is also pointed out that certain observations have been made regarding the voters list. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner in W.P.No.17958/2025 submits that the voters list as on the year 2020 includes voters of 41000 members. It is further submitted that they would place on record along with affidavit the voters list of 41000 members. It is specifically asserted that present voters list prepared by the administrator on role has approximately 28000 voters only. The very assertion of the petitioner in W.P.No.17958/2025 requires serious consideration. No doubt the preparations have been made and in terms of the calendar of events as learned Additional Government Advocate submits that in some of the constituencies i.e., in about 140 Taluks, they are no rival contestants. However, contra submission made by the petitioners is that many of the voters who wanted to contest have had their names omitted from the voters list. No doubt, the draft voters list was published on an earlier occasion and objections have not been filed, but however, noticing the stand of the petitioners in W.P.No.17958/2025 as also perusing the order at Annexure-E in W.P.No.17599/2025, despite noticing the arrangements made and expenditure incurred, it would be appropriate that the new body that is to come into place is the true representative of its constituents and accordingly, the amount spent would require to be not given priority over full participation of all members to have their representative body. In light of the same, there would be stay of the election process including the calendar of events at Annexure-P in W.P.No.17599/2025. It is clarified that the Court would keep the petition alive till the election process is completed. In light of the same, there would be stay of the election process including the calendar of events at Annexure-P in W.P.No.17599/2025. It is clarified that the Court would keep the petition alive till the election process is completed. The administrator to file a memo as to the procedure for re-verifying the voters list and finalizing the same. Petitioner in W.P.No.17958/2025 to file a memo and produce list of voters that they possess while also filing an affidavit regarding source of such voters list. List this matter on 07.07.2025. Impleading application filed in W.P.No.17599/2025 to be put up." 11. The primary grievance made out while seeking for vacation of the interim order was that the entirety of the election process throughout the State cannot be stalled at the instance of only a few of the petitioners. 12. Sri D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the impleading applicants has raised various contentions including that election process once commenced ought not to have been interfered with and ought to have been permitted to be completed as per the Calendar of Events, that aspects including defects in the Voters' List, are matters that could be resolved at a later stage, that efforts to thwart completion of election as directed by order in W.P.No.24137/2024 ought not to be entertained. 13. It was further contended that pursuant to the order in W.P.No.24137/2024, the Administrator had considered the objections made to the Voters' List and only thereupon issued the Final Voters' List. 14. It is further submitted that in the absence of specific pleadings, this Court ought not to enter upon an enquiry in the writ proceedings. 15. It must be noticed that learned counsel Sri S. Nataraja Sharma, who was appearing in W.P.No.17958/2025 had specifically asserted on 02.07.2025 when the interim order was passed preceded by arguments on both sides that the Voters' List as on 2020 included the Voters apart from 28,000 Voters (approximate) as published by the Administrator. 16. It is specifically contended that the total number of Voters was 41,000 and an Affidavit to such effect would be placed on record. 17. Sri. Vivek Subba Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner in W.P.No.17599/2025 objected to the interlocutory application filed seeking vacation of the interim order granted on 02.07.2025. 18. 16. It is specifically contended that the total number of Voters was 41,000 and an Affidavit to such effect would be placed on record. 17. Sri. Vivek Subba Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner in W.P.No.17599/2025 objected to the interlocutory application filed seeking vacation of the interim order granted on 02.07.2025. 18. It is to be noticed that before interim order was passed on 02.07.2025, the views of Administrator were elicited through the learned Additional Government Advocate. 19. Sri S. Nataraja Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.17958/2025 on 02.07.2025 had brought to the Court the box containing the Voters' List and during the course of hearing, the box of Voters' List was handed over to the Administrator. Though such handing over of Voters' List to the Administrator was not observed in the order sheet on 02.07.2025, however, such factual aspect is admitted by both sides. 20. It is in the context of such assertion by the petitioner regarding large scale irregularities in the preparation of Voters' List that the interim order came to be passed staying the election process. 21. The order passed in W.P.No.24137/2024 had indeed directed completion of election process within a time frame after considering objections to the Voters' List. 22. Insofar as the legal contention of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the impleading applicant, it must be noticed that interference in the election process is only to ensure that the elections are held with a rectified Voters' List free from defects and is not intended to halt the election process. 23. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the impleading applicants has relied on various judgments of the Apex Court including Supreme Court Bar Association and Others v. B.D.Kaushik - (2011) 13 SCC 774 ; Shaji K. Joseph v. V. Vishwanath and Others - (2016) 4 SCC 429; Ravi Yeshwanth Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad and Others - AIR 2012 SC 1339 , Daman Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others - AIR 1985 SC 973 24. The essence of the contention while relying on the aforesaid judgments is that the election process ought not to be interfered with once the Calendar of Events is published. 25. While it is settled legal position regarding Courts not readily interfering with election process, however, there are certain exceptions as well. 26. The essence of the contention while relying on the aforesaid judgments is that the election process ought not to be interfered with once the Calendar of Events is published. 25. While it is settled legal position regarding Courts not readily interfering with election process, however, there are certain exceptions as well. 26. The Apex Court in the case of Union Territory of Ladakh and Others v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference and Another - 2023 SccOnline SC 1140, has opined that there could be interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction in appropriate matters and such order was passed taking note of all judgments of the Apex Court as detailed in para-36. 27. In the event, the Court intends to step in to remove the illegalities and deviations resorted to by the repository of power which is to give effect to a smooth conduct of the election process after removing defects, appropriate directions to ensure conduct of elections as per procedure could be made. Whilst taking note of the law laid down in the cases of Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar and Others - (2000) 8 SCC 216 and Mohindhr Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner - (1978) 1 SCC 405, it would be permissible for issuing of appropriate directions. 28. Whilst Ashok Kumar’s case (supra) as referred to above has answered this contention, another aspect of this contention was considered by the Apex court in the case of Bharati Reddy v. State of Karnataka and others in Civil Appeal No. 10587/2017 dated 17.08.2017 , wherein the Apex court relying on the principle of existence of judicial review as being a part of basic structure and while referring to the judgment in His Holiness Kesavananda Bharti Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala and another - 1973 (4) SCC 225 and L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Others - AIR 1997 SC 1125 has observed at Para 13 as follows: “13. It is thus clear that power of judicial review under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution is an essential feature of the Constitution which can neither be tinkered with nor eroded. Even the Constitution cannot be amended to erode the basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, it cannot be said that the writ petition filed by respondent Nos. 6 to 9 under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable. Even the Constitution cannot be amended to erode the basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, it cannot be said that the writ petition filed by respondent Nos. 6 to 9 under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable. However, it is left to the discretion of the court exercising the power under Articles 226/227 to entertain the writ petition.” 29. The latest judgment of the Apex Court in Union Territory of Ladakh (supra) has also clarified the legal position on same lines. 30. Hence, in light of the above discussion, the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be said to be an absolute bar, though it is left to the discretion of the Court as to whether such power is to be exercised in the particular instance. 31. In the present case, we find that it is a fit case to intervene and accordingly, reject the contentions of the impleading applicants. 32. This Court had clearly by order of 02.07.2025 while staying the election clarified that the petitions would be kept alive till the election process was completed, while directing the Administrator to file a memo as to the procedure for re-verifying the Voters' List and finalizing the same. 31. After vehement arguments from both sides including the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the impleading applicants, in order to once again obtain a factual affirmation regarding the assertion of petitioners regarding large scale omissions in the Voters' List, the Court deemed it appropriate and necessary to elicit the views of the Administrator, Ms.B.K.Vidya Rani, who was present in Court. 32. Upon detailed questioning, the Administrator has emphatically taken a stand regarding the Membership. A summary of the answers elicited are as follows:- (i) After the order in W.P.No.24137/2024, the Administrator collected the Draft Voters' List of the former Secretary Mr.C.Muralidhar; (ii) It was specifically asserted on repeated questioning that the Draft Voters' List did not contain the list of Voters of the year 2018; (iii) The Manager of the Society had filed a list of number of Voters in which it was stated that the total number of members was 28,056. (iv) With respect to the specific question relating to handing over of Voters' List documents in boxes by learned counsel for the petitioner Sri S. Nataraja Sharma in W.P.No.17958/2025 on 02.07.2025, the Administrator had replied that the boxes contained details relating to 8642 Members. It was specifically reiterated that these members included 7589 Members of the year 2018, who are not included in the Voters' List published by the Administrator previously relating to the present election. 33. It is thus clear at this stage and admitted by the Administrator that there has to be re-checking of list furnished by the petitioners of 7589 Members, who pertain to the year 2018. 34. Though contentions are raised regarding 7589 Members as being ineligible by the learned Senior Counsel for impleading applicants and as FIR was lodged in that regard, nevertheless, verification of 7589 Members by the Administrator is an exercise that requires to be made. It is also the stand of the Administrator that the veracity of 7589 Members is not yet examined. It is necessary to notice that the petitioner in W.P.No.17958/2025 has specifically raised contention regarding tampering and manipulation of Voters' List as well as serious anomalies. It is necessary to notice that if 7589 Members are excluded without verification, it would amount to excluding about one-fourth of the total Membership. Accordingly, fit case is made out to direct for re- verification of entirety of the Voters' List, it would be necessary to give true effect to the direction in W.P.No.24137/2024 35. Accordingly, this Court finds no reason to modify or vacate the interim order passed on 02.07.2025. 36. Having had inputs directly from the Administrator, who was present in the Court not only on previous dates of hearing, but on this day as well, it is necessary while taking note that directions have been issued to the Administrator to re-verify the Voters' List to take note of apprehension of her safety as expressed in the open court. 37. In light of the direction in the order dated 02.07.2025, the Administrator is required to complete the verification of Voters' List, it would be appropriate that upon request by the Administrator, the respondent State to afford necessary Police protection which would be need based to the Administrator and the Manager of the Society. 37. In light of the direction in the order dated 02.07.2025, the Administrator is required to complete the verification of Voters' List, it would be appropriate that upon request by the Administrator, the respondent State to afford necessary Police protection which would be need based to the Administrator and the Manager of the Society. Such direction is issued in light of the specific plea of the Administrator regarding threats by the rival factions. 38. Accordingly, I.A.Nos.2/2025 and 3/2025 for impleading are allowed taking note of the averments made. Petitioner to carry out the necessary amendment. 39. Accordingly, I.A.No.4/2025 for vacating stay is rejected. Re-list the matter on 11.07.2025 with a further direction to all concerned, including the Administrator to file a memo detailing the procedure for verification of Voters' List and finalizing the same. Registry is directed to preserve the video recording of today's Court proceedings pertaining to the present case. Copy of the order to be communicated to all the parties.