Ashok Bhushan, J.

1. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondents.

2. These appeals have been filed with leave granted by the Court by its order dated 10th July, 2014.

3. The writ appeals have been filed against the judgment and orders of the learned Single Judge dated 16th June, 2014 in W.P(C) Nos. 26823/2006, 18956/2007 and 14240/2014. The appellants were not parties to the proceedings or the judgment of the learned Single Judge. They filed the appeals praying for leave on the ground that they are legal representatives of one T.K. Gopalakrishnan, who was a party to the writ proceeding and died on 1.1.2011. On the aforesaid ground, leave was granted by this Court to file the appeals.

4. Brief facts which are necessary to be noted for decision in all these writ appeals are as under:

There is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, which was formed with 12 members who constituted first governing body. The names of all the members have been mentioned in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. By Government Order dated 6.10.2006, the Government ordered that management of the school be taken over under Section 14(2) of the Kerala Education Act, for a period of five years or till such time as the educational agency elects its President. In W.P(C) No. 26823/2006, the prayer was to set aside the Government Order. The relief sought in W.P(C) No. 18956/2007 was for setting aside the order directing the Assistant Educational Officer to convene the meeting and in W.P(C) No. 14240/2014, the prayer was for an order directing the State Government to refrain from proceeding with Ext. P4 pending disposal of the above two writ petitions.

5. The writ petitions came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge on 16th June, 2014 The petitioners came up with a prayer that the period for which the management was taken has come to an end. The petitioners are only interested in the management of the school being given back to the society. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that an Advocate of this Court may be appointed to oversee the conduct of the election. The learned Single Judge, taking note of the fact that the period of 5 years has expired in 2011, directed for holding of election. It was undisputed before the learned Single Judge that the governing body consists of 8 persons, whose names were noted by the learned Single Judge. It is also noted by the learned Single Judge that T.K. Gopalakrishnan, the additional 5th respondent, was one among the said nine members, is no more. The learned Single Judge, taking note of the above facts, issued directions for holding the election by the Assistant Educational Officer by giving notice to the 8 persons. Appellants 1, 2 and 3 are the legal heirs of T.K. Gopalakrishnan. 4th appellant claimed to be proxy of one T.M. Gowri, who lives in the United States of America.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge, submitting that appellants 1 to 3 being legal representatives of T.K. Gowri, they ought to have been brought on record in the writ petition before any order was passed by the learned Single Judge. He submits that under the bye-laws and regulation of the society, there is right of nomination by the governing body and as they were the necessary parties in the writ petition, an order in the absence of appellants 1 to 3 has to be set aside. It is further submitted that in so far as appellant no. 4 is concerned, he being proxy of Smt. T.M. Gowri, was also entitled to participate in the ensuing election and the learned Single Judge did not permit the proxy of Smt. T.M.Gowri to participate in the election due to which the ensuing election is vitiated. He further submits that the election could have been directed to be conducted after holding meeting of the governing body for nomination of the member to fill up the vacancy of T.K. Gopalakrishnan.

7. Learned