Hon’ble Rajan Roy, J.—This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by two Advocates claiming themselves to be the members of the Central Bar Association, Lucknow which is a Bar Association of the District and Sessions Court, Lucknow seeking the following reliefs :

(i) “Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to conduct repoll of Central Bar Association Election conducted on 2.9.2015.

(i)(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the election proceedings of Central Bar Association, Lucknow by the Elders Committee on 2.9.2015 after summoning the original records from respondents.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to conduct re-poll through Electronic Voting Machine, after conducting proper enquiry.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to permit any stranger or non-member of Central Bar Association to participate in any manner in the re-poll.

(iv) Issue any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(v) Allow the writ petition with costs.”

2. The facts of the case in brief are that election to the aforesaid Bar Association, which is a society registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1860’) were held on 2.9.2015. It appears that the petitioners sat on ‘Dharna’ being dissatisfied with the manner in which the voting was conducted. Ultimately the counting of the votes took place on 7.9.2015 and the result was declared on the same day. The petitioner No. 1 was the candidate for the post of the President and petitioner No. 2 was the candidate for General Secretary. The petitioner No. 1 lost the election allegedly by a margin of 2 votes whereas petitioner No. 2 lost the election by margin of 1 vote. The election was held under the supervision of Elders Committee constituted under the Model Bye-laws framed by the Bar Council of State of U.P. Which is said to have been adopted by the Central Bar Association, Lucknow.

3. The contention of Sri Anu Pratap Singh learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was as under :

(i) The Elders Committee had not been constituted in accordance with Model Bye-laws framed by Bar Council of U.P. And it did not comprise of the senior members of the Bar. In this regard he invited the attention of this Court to an order dated 23.1.2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 144 (MS) of 2013 relating to the earlier election held in the year 2013 when elections were ordered to be conducted under the supervision of Elders Committee constituted by the High Court. According to him the said Elders Committee had not resigned, therefore, there was no occasion for constitution of a new Elders Committee. He also invited the attention of this Court to another judgment and order dated 21.8.2015 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4474 (MS) of 2015 wherein constitution of the Elders Committee under whose supervision the election in question have been held was itself challenged and this Court gave liberty to the petitioners of the said writ petition to approach the Bar council in this regard which shall look into the matter, hear the rival parties and shall take a decision as regards the validity of the resolution passed by the Central Bar Association regarding constitution of Elders Committee. The decision so taken shall be communicated by the Bar Council to the members of the Bar Association. The submission, therefore, is that the very constitution of Elders Committee was against the Model Bye-laws and the election held by it was ipso-facto invalid.

(iii) In the election in question about 200 Election Officers were appointed out of which many of them were strangers and many of them were not even member of the Bar Association. The counting of ballot paper