This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings in Roc.No.534/2013, dated 20.08.2013, of respondent No.1.

I have heard Sri M.Sudheer Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri G.M.Mohiuddin, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1, and the learned counsel representing.

Sri V.R.Machavaram, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

The petitioners are the members of respondent No.3-Bar Association, Nellore. Respondent No.3 was registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 in the year 1917 and it is presently governed by the provisions of the A.P.Societies Registration Act, 2001 (for short ‘the Societies Registration Act’). As per the byelaws of respondent No.3, elections to the Executive Committee shall be held once in a year. The petitioners, however, pleaded that the elected body of respondent No.3 has not conducted elections for more than three years. The petitioners further pleaded that respondent No.2, who was appointed by respondent No.3 as an Election Officer, has issued an election notification on 23.07.2013 proposing to conduct elections to the Executive Committee of respondent No.3. The following was the election schedule published by respondent No.2:-

“Receipt of nominations : From 13.08.2013 to 19.08.2013 upto 5.00 pm

Scrutiny & publication of list : 20.08.2013

Withdrawals : 21.08.2013 upto 12.00 noon

Final list publication : 21.08.2013

Election : 30.08.2013 as per the Schedule existing”

The petitioners pleaded that in pursuance of the said election notification, the election process was commenced and several members have filed their nominations, that scrutiny of the nominations was held on 12.08.2013 and that after scrutiny, valid nominations were published. That for the offices of the General Secretary and Treasurer, one valid nomination each was received, that as there was no valid nomination for the office of the Vice President, respondent No.2 announced that fresh notification will be issued for the said post. The petitioners claimed that they have filed their nominations for the offices of Secretary and Treasurer respectively and that as declared by respondent No.2, there were no other valid nominations in respect of the said offices, and therefore they are deemed to have been elected as such.

It appears, certain members of respondent No.3-Bar Association have sent a complaint to respondent No.1 alleging commission of several irregularities by respondent No.2 in the election process. The Secretary of respondent No.1 has addressed the impugned proceedings to one E.Venkata Rami Reddy, Secretary of respondent No.3-Bar Association, wherein it was informed that the members of the Executive Committee of respondent No.1-Council has considered the complaint signed by 267 advocates of respondent No.3 alleging commission of many irregularities in the process of elections to the Bar Association and that the Executive Committee of respondent No.1 has resolved to inform the Secretary of respondent No.3 to stop further elections to the Bar Association and to appoint an ad hoc Committee to conduct elections to the Bar Association. The Secretary further stated in the communication that he was informed by the Chairman of respondent No.1 that in view of adoption of common byelaw by respondent No.3, it has to follow the same and elections have to be conducted as per the byelaws. Accordingly, the Secretary of respondent No.3 was asked to stop all further proceedings while informing that the Bar Council will constitute an ad hoc Committee for holding elections and the particulars thereof will be intimated in short time. Feeling aggrieved by the said communication, the petitioners filed this writ petition.

Various pleas have been raised by the petitioners on the matters such as nonregistration of the revised common byelaws. However, at the hearing, Sri M.Sudheer Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, confined his submissions to the lack of jurisdiction of respo