JUDGMENT :- The petitioners are challenging order dated 6-6-2006 passed by respondent No.1 Hon'bIe Minister permitting amendment to the byelaw of respondent No.4 Society and subsequent order dated 7-6-2006 passed by respondent No. 5 Election Officer staying the election programme until further orders or till declaration of fresh election programme according to amended byelaws. This Court on 20-6-2006 while issuing notice indicated to parties that petition would be disposed off at admission stage. On that day this Court also granted ad-interim relief and directed maintenance of status quo as on that day. It appears that respondent No.5, practicing advocate misinterpreted this interim order as permitting him to proceed further and hence, grievance was made in that respect before this Court. On 27-6-2006 this Court passed order on CA 3708/2006 and only because the learned AGP communicated about resignation tendered by Election Officer, though this Court found course adopted by respondent No.5 to be objectionable, it did not take any further steps against him in the matter. On 13-7-2006, this Court clarified that its order of status quo would not come in way of respondent No.3 in accep

Click Here to Read the rest of this document