JUDGMENT : Deepak Roshan, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the order passed by the 6th Respondent, as contained in letter dated 07.05.2022 (Annexure-8), which has been passed in furtherance to an application filed by the 8th Respondent; whereby a direction was issued to break/open the lock of the office of the Chairman of the Ayyappa School situated at Sector-5 Bokaro. Further prayer has been made to reinstate Dr. Avinash V Unnithan and other elected person in the office of the Chairman of the said school. 3. The brief facts of the case as it appears from the pleadings is that the petitioner is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, which has been established to promote social, religious, literary, educational, and cultural activities in Bokaro and beyond. It operates as per its memorandum and rules with no involvement of the District Administration. The society runs as per the registered bye-laws (Annexure-2) which provide that a governing body is to be elected in terms of Rule 7 read with Rule 8. Further fact reveals that the previous Ayyappa Seva Sangham committee (2019-21), elected on 29.09.2019, was illegally occupying the office even after completion of the elected period.This led to filing of a suit by the petitioner (not the society but the alleged president i.e. Dr. Avinash V. Unnithan), which was registered as O.S. 37/2022 before the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division) at Bokaro.Vide order dated 14.3.2022, an ad interim injunction was passed as against the defendants in the said suit. As per the averment made in para 8 of the writ application, in pursuant to the notices which were issued in the said suit, the defendants appeared and agreed for election. It has further been stated in the writ application that in furtherance to an agreement, the present petitioner (Dr. Avinash v Unnithan) was elected as the Chairman/President on 24.4.2022 by the executive Committee of the Sree Ayyappa Public School/Ayyappa Seva Sangham. The result of the election was also communicated to the state authorities (annexure 4 series). It has also been stated in the writ application that after assuming charge, the new committee discovered large-scale embezzlement and found misappropriation by the outgoing members, as reflected in the Internal Audit Report. 5. Mr. The result of the election was also communicated to the state authorities (annexure 4 series). It has also been stated in the writ application that after assuming charge, the new committee discovered large-scale embezzlement and found misappropriation by the outgoing members, as reflected in the Internal Audit Report. 5. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel, who was earlier appearing on behalf of the petitioner, on the very 1st date of hearing, has argued before this Court w.r.t. the powers of the S.D.O. to issue the impugned order that too without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner i.e., Dr. Avinash V.Unnithan and other alleged elected members. During midst of the proceedings, Dr. Avinash V. Unnithan - the petitioner in person started conducting the case and contended that the Ayyappa Seva Sangham, registered on 21.01.2011 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Serial No. 1161, Govt. of Jharkhand, 2010-11), manages Sree Ayyappa Mandir and Sree Ayyappa Public School in Bokaro Steel City. He further submits that merely on making application by 8th Respondent on 28.04.2022, the Deputy Commissioner directed the S.D.O. vide order dated 04.05.2022, to take action in terms of law and in view of the said direction of the Deputy Commissioner, the S.D.O. called for report and on the next day i.e. on 06.05.2022, vide memo no. 412/2022, the Officer-in- Charge of the concerned police station had registered a case against the members of the new society and without even recording the statement of present committee or pending investigation, recommended for action and accordingly, the Sub-Divisional Officer i.e., the 6th Respondent, passed the impugned order and deputed Executive Magistrate to forcibly open the lock and to deliver the possession to private respondent No.8. It is alleged by Dr. Avinash v Unnithan that on 8th Respondent's application dated 28.04.2022, the Deputy Commissioner directed action on 04.05.2022. The S.D.O., without investigating or recording statements, relied on a police report dated 06.05.2022; vide Memo No. 412/2022 ordered for forcible possession and transfer in favour of 8th Respondent. He reiterated that without notice to the petitioner's Executive Committee, the S.D.O., vide Memo No. 698/GO dated 07.05.2022, unilaterally acted on Mr. Satish Nair's letter, deputing an Executive Magistrate to forcibly open the Chairman's office. Pursuant thereto; possession, including vital documents, was handed over to 8th Respondent, despite repeated objections and requests for its return. 6. He reiterated that without notice to the petitioner's Executive Committee, the S.D.O., vide Memo No. 698/GO dated 07.05.2022, unilaterally acted on Mr. Satish Nair's letter, deputing an Executive Magistrate to forcibly open the Chairman's office. Pursuant thereto; possession, including vital documents, was handed over to 8th Respondent, despite repeated objections and requests for its return. 6. Learned counsel representing the Intervenor-Respondent submits that the intervener filed I.A. No. 1371 of 2024 for intervention on behalf of the elected executive body of Ayyappa Seva Sangham. He further reiterates the facts in regard to the registration of the society and the bye-laws. 7. Learned counsels representing the private Respondents and also the Respondent-Intervenor contended that the last elected body's election was held on 29.09.2019 for the 2019-22 term, as per the registered bye-laws. The registered bye-laws stipulate a three-year tenure for office bearers, as per Rule 4(ii). For brevity, the same is extracted hereinbelow: “There will be executive members, including office bearers, whose term in office will be three years elected by the general body.” As such, learned counsels submit that the earlier office bearers’ term was set to end on 29.09.2022. The fresh election process began in May, 2022 with a notification from the General Secretary, and the election was scheduled for 26.06.2022 (Annexure I.A.-5); however, the same was not conducted on the scheduled date owing to ruckus by Dr. Avinash V. Unnithan i.e. the Petitioner-in-Person. They strenuously contended that the petitioner Dr. Avinash V. Unnithan is/was not the elected Chairman/President, as no election was held on the said date i.e. 24.04.2022. He further argues that a suit has also been filed by the intervener respondent bearing O.S. no. 33 of 2024 challenging the election of said Dr. Avinash V. Unnithan in which the defendants have also appeared and filed their written statement. The documents pertaining to the filing of O.S. case no. 33 of 2024 and the W.S. thereof have been brought on record and a report prepared by the Ld. Addl. Collector, Bokaro, as per the instructions of the Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro has also been brought on record to substantiate the fact that no election was held electing the said Dr. Avinash V. Unnithan on 24.4.2022. 8. 33 of 2024 and the W.S. thereof have been brought on record and a report prepared by the Ld. Addl. Collector, Bokaro, as per the instructions of the Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro has also been brought on record to substantiate the fact that no election was held electing the said Dr. Avinash V. Unnithan on 24.4.2022. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-State supports the impugned order and stated that as because the day-to-day management of the school was being adversely affected resulting into hindrance in the imparting of education as such the coercive step was taken by the authorities. 9. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusing the documents annexed with the respective affidavits and the documents annexed therein, it appears that the main issue which Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel, who was earlier appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued before this Court is w.r.t. the powers of the S.D.O. to issue the impugned order that too without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner i.e., Dr. Avinash V. Unnithan and other alleged elected members. 10. At the outset, it is stated that there can be no quarrel to the aspect that the S.D.O. had no power to pass such an order. However, the issue that is to be decided in the writ application is in regards as to whether any relief can be granted to the petitioner upon quashing of the order impugned; for which certain facts are to be appreciated for convenience. 11. The erstwhile committee, as admitted by all the parties, which was elected vis-à-vis the Society, on 29.09.2019. The period of an elected body in terms of Rule 4(ii) of the registered bye-laws is three years; as such, the natural corollary to the same would be that the last elected body has to be functional till 28.09.2022. Now if the submission of the petitioner i.e., Dr. Avinash V. Unnithan is accepted; then the election in furtherance to which he has been elected is dated 26.04.2022, which precedes the last date of the erstwhile elected body which cannot be accepted. 12. Now if the submission of the petitioner i.e., Dr. Avinash V. Unnithan is accepted; then the election in furtherance to which he has been elected is dated 26.04.2022, which precedes the last date of the erstwhile elected body which cannot be accepted. 12. It further appears by perusing Rule 7 and 8 of the bye- laws read with the averments made at para 8 of the writ application, in order to hold an election a 30 days' notice is required to be given to the President by 1/3rd members and after expiry of thirty days, a notice of ten days is to be provided to the members for conducting the election. Even assuming that the agreement was given to conduct election in furtherance to the order dated 14.03.2022 passed in O.S. case no. 37 of 2022; the same could have been given only upon appearance as per para 8 of the writ application i.e. 29.3.2022. As such, the scheduled 40 days period would have lapsed only on 7.05.2022; whereas the so-called election, as alleged was held on 26.04.2022. These are all disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in a writ jurisdiction vis-à-vis the rivals claims of the election. 13. As stated hereinabove, the only issue which is required to be decided is as to whether any relief can be granted to the petitioner i.e. Dr. Avinash V. Unnithan in view of the fact that this Court has already held in the preceding paragraph that the S.D.O. had no power to pass such an order. As per their own statement, the elected period of Dr. Avinash V. Unnithan is going to end on 25.4.2025, though the election itself is in dispute; however, this Court is not entering into such disputed question of fact. The law is now no more res-integra, that the discretionary remedy should not be exercised in case the same would defeat the interests of justice and also the writ court should refrain from exercising writ jurisdiction in order to secure dishonest advantage or perpetuate an unjust gain. Reference may be made to the following judgments: a. In 2020 0 Supereme (Ori) 60 all Orissa lawyers' association Versus. Orissa state bar Council (para 16,20 and 24). b. In (2010) 10 SCC 677 , Ritesh Tewari and Another Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others para 26, 27, 29, 33 and 34). 14. Reference may be made to the following judgments: a. In 2020 0 Supereme (Ori) 60 all Orissa lawyers' association Versus. Orissa state bar Council (para 16,20 and 24). b. In (2010) 10 SCC 677 , Ritesh Tewari and Another Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others para 26, 27, 29, 33 and 34). 14. The judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ritesh Tewari (supra) is squarely applicable in the facts of the present case which is being quoted as hereunder: “27. Where a party's claim is not founded on valid grounds, the party cannot claim equity. A party that claims equity must come before the court with clean hands as equities have to be properly worked out between parties to ensure that no one is allowed to have their pound of flesh vis-à-vis the others unjustly. (Vide Sikkim Subba Associates v. State of Sikkim) Refer Rule 4(ii), 7 and 8 of the bye-laws read with the averments made at para 8 of the writ application and the observation made hereinabove. 15. Further, in the case of M.P. Mittal Vs. state of Haryana & Ors., (1984) 4 SCC 371 the Apex Court held as under: "….5. it is open to the High Court to consider whether, in the exercise of its undoubted discretionary jurisdiction, it should decline relief to such petitioner if the grant of relief would defeat the interests of justice. The Court always has power to refuse relief where the petitioner seeks to Invoke its writs jurisdiction in order to secure a dishonest advantage or perpetuate an unjust against gain" Further, in the case of C. Albert Morris v. K. Chandrasekaran, (2006) 1 SCC 228 the Court held that a right in law exists only and only when it has a lawful origin. “34. In Mangal Prasad Tamoli v. Narvadeshwar Mishra 24 this Court held that if an order at the initial stage is bad in law, then all further proceedings consequent thereto will be non-est and have to be necessarily set aside.” Recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.S. Sanjay Vs. “34. In Mangal Prasad Tamoli v. Narvadeshwar Mishra 24 this Court held that if an order at the initial stage is bad in law, then all further proceedings consequent thereto will be non-est and have to be necessarily set aside.” Recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.S. Sanjay Vs. Indian Bank & Ors, 2025 SCC Online SC 368 has held as under: “While administering law it is to be tempered with equity and if the equitable situation demands after setting right the legal formulations not to take it to the logical end, the High Court would be failing in its duty if it does not notice equitable con-sideration and mould the final order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Any other approach would render the High Court a normal court of appeal, which it is not. It is a settled principle of law that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary in nature and in a given case, even if some action or order challenged in the petition is found to be illegal and invalid, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction thereunder can refuse to upset it with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties.” 16. In the light of the aforesaid facts and the rulings referred to hereinabove; even after the order of the S.D.O. being set aside; however, the relief of restoration of possession of office of the Chairman of the School cannot be allowed in such disputed facts. The school is required to be run fairly in order to have a conducive environment for the students who are studying in the school. From the ordersheet of this case, it appears that vide order dated 11.1.2024 the co-ordinate bench of this Court had already ordered that in the interim, the Principal of the School shall be functioning as the receiver of the said school. 17. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, this Court refrains from issuing any writ which may give rise to unequitable results. In other words, the relief to be granted in exercise of such powers should be equitable one. Writ of mandamus is a high discretionary remedy as the aggrieved person has not only to establish the infraction of provision of law but is also required to further establish that such infraction has resulted into invasion of judicially enforceable right. In other words, the relief to be granted in exercise of such powers should be equitable one. Writ of mandamus is a high discretionary remedy as the aggrieved person has not only to establish the infraction of provision of law but is also required to further establish that such infraction has resulted into invasion of judicially enforceable right. In the present case, judicially enforceable right vis-à-vis petitioner; the petitioner has been unable to substantiate the same, and further this court cannot even adjudicate upon this issue as the same is a disputed questions of fact. The two counterparts being in headlocks in regards to the factum of as to who is the elected body cannot be adjudicated in a writ jurisdiction. 18. Further, even if it is assumed that the petitioner i.e. Dr. Avinash V. Unnithan is the duly elected chairman/president; the tenure of the same by efflux of time is going to end in the month of April 2025 as per the Bye-Laws & Rules referred to hereinabove; as such, by virtue of the prolonged litigation, the2nd prayer/relief cannot be granted to the petitioner. 19. Per se, in the interest of justice and also in the interest of the students; a fair election superseding all other elections, including that of the elections of the intervener is necessary; hence it is ordered, that a fresh election shall be conducted upon the strict supervision of the Deputy Commissioner of the District and in the meanwhile, the receiver so appointed shall continue to act as ordered by this Court. It is made clear that the fresh election as ordered hereinabove, shall be conducted within a period of twelve weeks from today after complying the relevant rules of the Bye-Law of the Society. 20. Let a copy of the order be sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro for the needful. Consequently, the instant writ application stands disposed of with the observations/directions made hereinabove. Pending I.A., if any, is also closed.