( 1 ) WITH the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, these letters Patent Appeals are taken up for final hearing.

( 2 ) THESE LPAs arise from the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 23rd January, 2006 by virtue of which elections to the posts of office bearers and members of the Executive Board of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management committee (hereinafter referred to as dsgmc ) were countermanded and fresh elections were ordered to be held on 14th February, 2006.

( 3 ) THE facts of the case as per the appellants are:- (a) On 28th November, 2005, the General Secretary of the DSGMC, Shri ravinder Singh Khurana, the respondent No. 2 in this appeal, issued a letter informing the members that a meeting of the General House of DSGMC would be held on 19th December, 2005 for the purpose of convening elections. The President of the DGSMC Shri Paramjit Singh Sarna, the appellant herein, was not in India when the letter dated 28th November, 2005 was issued by the Secretary of the DSGMC. (b) Upon his return the President issued a letter dated 8th December, 2005 stating that the General Secretary had no authority to issue the letter dated 28th November, 2005 and issued an order in exercise of his powers under Section 21 of the Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the `dsg act ) to the same effect. Thereafter, a notice dated 12th December, 2005 was issued by the President calling for a special meeting of the Executive Board on 15th December, 2005 at 10. 30 am. The said meeting was attended by eight members who constituted a majority in the Executive Board and was presided over by the secretary since the President was unable to reach at the prescribed time. The majority unanimously approved the letter dated 28th November, 2005 reiterating that the elections would be held on 19th December, 2005. However, the President under the belief that no meeting had been held, convened another meeting at 11. 00 am, which was also attended by 8 members of the Executive Board and a resolution was passed to the effect that the elections would not be held on 19th december, 2005 but on 18th January, 2006. The same was communicated by the president vide his letter dated 16th December, 2005. Thereafter, the General secretary issued another letter dated 15th December, 2005 stating that there would be no change in the original date of election i. e. 19th December, 2005. (c) The President after seeking legal advice in the matter issued a letter/notice dated 17th December, 2005 to the effect that the elections would be held on 19th December, 2005 as originally decided and intimated by the general Secretary in his letter dated 15th December, 2005 and withdrew his earlier letter dated 16th December, 2005. (d) On the date of the elections, i. e. 19th December, 2005, 35 members out of an electoral college of 50 members participated and the new office bearers and members of the Executive Board were unanimously elected. Significantly on the night of 18th and 19th December, 2005, the General Secretary issued telegrams to the effect that the elections dated 19th December, 2005 were postponed. But such telegrams reached the office of DSGMC on 20th December, 2005 i. e. , after the date of convening the elections. 3. This election was challenged by way of series of writ petitions including one filed by the Secretary, Ravinder Singh Khurana, respondent No. 2 in this LPA, amongst others before the learned Single Judge of this Court, who allowed the writ petitions and countermanded the elections held on 19th december, 2005 mainly on the ground that the conflicting stands of the two factions repeated by several communications on either side had made the issue of holding elections on 19th December, 2005, so confusing that there were no real and fair elections. It is this common judgment and the order of the learned single Judge in the group of writ petitions which has been challenged in these lpas.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for t