By the Court.—We have heard Shri A.K. Srivastava and Shri Sudhir Srivastava for the appellants. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents.

2. This intra-Court Special Appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 24.10.2013, by which learned Single Judge has declined to entertain the writ petition on the ground that in the previous writ petition, directions were given to decide petitioner’s objections by a reasoned and speaking order to finalise the electoral college for holding elections. The Court also directed in the earlier Writ Petition No. 16786 of 2013, that in respect of all other grievances the petitioner will be at liberty to seek remedies under Section 25 (1) of Societies Registration Act, or by way of Civil Suit.

3. It is submitted that the electoral college has been finalised without deciding petitioner’s representation.

4. Learned Single Judge has observed that any grievance with regard to finalisation of electoral college and elections can be considered after the elections are held in accordance with the provisions of the Societies Registration Act or by filing a civil suit.

5. The elections for electing the office bearers of a society or a committee of management of an educational institution in accordance with the scheme of administration either by the office bearers of the outgoing committee of management or authorised controller appointed by the educational authorities, requires several steps to be taken, which includes the finalisation of the electoral college, advertising a date and venue for holding elections, appointment of observer etc. The persons participating in the election process raise several disputes during the process and file writ petitions seeking directions to the educational authorities. A large number of questions are raised such as the validity of the membership of the members, the number of electors and the finalisation of the electoral college. These disputes, during the process of elections in view of rival contentions on facts, consume valuable time of the Court. The directions issued are often not obeyed by the parties, who have gained momentary advantage, and may loose the opportunity to succeed in the elections.

6. A large number of writ petitions are being filed in the High Court seeking directions either way during the process of elections. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that thousands of writ petitions are filed every year in the matters of elections of the societies and the committee of management of the educational institutions for which a separate determination has been carved out. This Court is very often swayed by the circumstances and the aggressive arguments advanced by learned counsels appearing for the parties and pass interim orders or directions, which causes interference in the process of election. Very often the parties do not give the background of the case and the number of writ petitions filed earlier in respect of same elections, causing further confusion, which is later on sought to be resolved by making representations to consider as to who is in effective control of the institutions to be decided by the Regional Level Committee. In the present case also a second writ petition was filed giving rise to this special appeal seeking directions for deciding the objections to the validity of the electoral college.

7. In the matter of elections the Supreme Court and this Court have consistently taken a view that the Courts should not interfere in the process of elections once the elections have been notified, as the adjudicating authority cannot conclusively decide any dispute in the middle of the process of election nor the fundamental rights of any of the parties are affected as elections have always been held to be statutory right. The parties can always be relegated to the forums of adjudication and election tribunals after the results of the elections are declared.

8. In the case of elections to the Parliament and Legislativ