The provided judgement emphasizes the importance of the timing and context in which judicial and administrative actions are taken during the election process. It highlights that courts and authorities should exercise their powers in a manner that facilitates the smooth and lawful conduct of elections without unnecessary interference or delay. The judgement also underscores that judicial intervention should be cautious and only sought to correct or smoothen the election proceedings without obstructing or delaying them.

However, the judgement does not explicitly discuss or support the legal doctrine that once an authority has performed its duty or its term has ended, it becomes functus officio, meaning it has no further legal authority or power to act. Instead, it focuses on the scope of judicial review and the timing of court intervention in election matters, particularly emphasizing that intervention should not impede the ongoing election process unless specific circumstances justify it.

In summary, the judgement does not support the point that an authority becomes functus officio after performing its duty or after its term ends. It primarily addresses the principles governing judicial and administrative powers during the election process, rather than the finality of an authority’s powers once its duty is fulfilled.