Honble H.L. Gokhale, C.J.—Heard Mr. Sachindra Mohan in support of this appeal. Mr. K.P.S. Yadav appears for the respondents.

2. The appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 2nd March, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the petition filed by the appellants herein was dismissed.

3. The case of the appellants was that an erroneous order was passed on 3rd June, 2002 by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits Funds, U.P. Varanasi, by which 36 members, who were not the valid members of the Society, were permitted to vote in the election of the Society. A petition was, accordingly, filed to quash and set aside the aforesaid order dated 3rd June, 2002. The respondents were 26 out of these 36 members. The learned Judge, however, dismissed the petition solely on the ground that under that order, the election to the Society had already been notified and, therefore, the Court should not interfere in the election process.

4. Mr. Sachindra Mohan, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Judge ignored the fact that the very 36 persons of the Society were already disqualified by the Prescribed Authority by its order dated 29th August, 1996 passed under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act and that order had remained undisturbed, though earlier a Writ Petition No. 33702 of 1996 was filed to challenge the same. That petition had been dismissed as infructuous, and that according to him the disqualification under the order dated 29th August, 1996 continued.

5. Mr. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that since the election had been announced, the learned Judge was right in refusing to interfere with the electoral process.

6. We are quite conscious of the fact that once the election process has started, the Court should not normally interfere but where it is found that certain persons cannot participate in the election on the basis of an earlier determination by the Competent Authority, there is no reason not to look into the same.

7. We have gone through the records of the writ petition and have perused the order which was first passed by the Prescribed Authority on 29th August, 1996 whereby it disqualified some 36 members. The Prescribed Authority has noted in the order that those persons were not enrolled as the members of the Society with the permission of the Founding Body as was required under the Bye-laws of the Society. The order dated 29th August, 1996 was challenged in the earlier mentioned Writ Petition No. 33702 of 1996 which was dismissed as having become infructuous as in the meanwhile the election had been held. However, a direction was issued that the Registrar shall convene a meeting of the General Body in accordance with the Bye-laws of the Society and hold the elections. In the process of holding that election the order was passed by the Assistant Registrar on 3rd June, 2002 whereby the 36 members, who had earlier been excluded by the Prescribed Authority by the order dated 29th August, 1996, have been included as voters. Being aggrieved by that order, the appellants had filed the petition out of which the Special Appeal arises.

8. In our opinion, this particular aspect ought to have been looked into by the learned Judge since it was clear from the records that those 36 persons had earlier been disqualified by the Prescribed Authority by the order dated 29th August, 1996 and so long as this disqualification had not been removed, they could not be permitted to vote in the election. The order dated 3rd June, 2002 does not indicate that this disqualification had been removed nor have the respondents been able to point out anything from the record that it had been removed.

9. In such circumstances, in our view, the learned Judge committed an error in passing the order. We allow this Special Appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge as also the order dated 3rd June, 2002 passed by the Assistant Regi