The paragraphs that support the contention that once the tenure of the committee has expired, it cannot continue to function beyond the prescribed period are as follows:

• (!) : This paragraph discusses that the order against the existing committee was not based on the merits but due to the pandemic, and it emphasizes that the election process was initiated but halted at a stage where the committee's term was coming to an end. It implies that the proper legal process is to conduct elections as per the bye-laws once the term expires, and any continuation beyond that is not lawful.

• (!) : This paragraph explicitly states that the committee's term was to end in June 2020, and the process for elections was initiated in accordance with the bye-laws. It emphasizes that the expiry of the term was approaching and that the proper course was to hold elections as per the law, indicating that the committee cannot legally continue in office after their term ends.

• (!) : Here, the court notes that the affairs of the society are governed by the bye-laws and that the committee's term was to end in June 2020. It states that the society's actions in continuing the committee beyond the expiry of their tenure would be contrary to the law, and that the proper remedy is to follow the prescribed process for elections.

• (!) : This paragraph clarifies that since the committee's term had expired, their continuation in office without lawful authority is not permissible, and the court emphasizes that the dispute should be resolved by following the statutory or bye-law procedures for holding new elections.

In summary, these paragraphs collectively express the view that after the expiry of the prescribed tenure, the committee cannot legally remain in office, and measures to restrain such continuation are supported by the judgment.