Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:78997 Court No. - 32 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14412 of 2025 Petitioner :- Gardenia Glory Apartment Owners Association Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Subodh Kumar,Udit Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Subodh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the private respondents. 2. The petitioner by means of present writ petition has assailed the order dated 11.04.2025, by which the Election Officer has directed the Members to submit a voter list so that election of the Society may be held. 3. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Election Officer does not have any power to ask every member of the Society to submit his separate voter list, and therefore, the order impugned is without jurisdiction. He submits that in such view of the fact, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law and deserves to be set aside. 4. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the law is settled that once the election process has been set in motion, the Court should refrain from interfering in the election process unless patent illegality is pointed out in conducting the election. It is submitted that the term of the petitioner's Committee of Management has expired, and the impugned order does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner inasmuch as it is expected that the Election Officer would conduct the election by valid electoral college, and in case, the election is not conducted as per the valid electoral college, it is always open to the petitioner to challenge the election process after the election is concluded. 5. To the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court has ample power to interfere with the election process. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Mohammad Tayyab Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2014 (10) ADJ396. 6. Be that as it may, the impugned order dated 11.04.2025 read as under: " ककरकरलर आददश ककलकततत सचचव एवव अधरक एवव समसत चनवकसत जन गकररचनरक गललरत सदकटर 46 नलएर गगतम बबध नगर आप सभत कल ससचचत चकरक जकतक हह चक रदपरबटत रजजसटटकर ककरकरलर गकचजरकबकद दकरक आददश अनबसकर पतकवक सवखरक 35 I- Ⅲ चदनकवक 03/04/2025 कल जजलक मतसर अजधककरत गगतम बबध नगर कल आपकद रहकव चनवकरचन अजधककरत चनरबक चकरक गरक हह और चबनकव पचकरक आरमभ करनद कद जलए आप सभत कल ससचचत चकरक जकतक हह चक अचवलवब अपनत वलटर जलसट अधलशसतककरत कद ककरकरलर मम जमक करवकए और सभत कल इस चबनकव पचकरक कद बकरद मम ससचचत करद तकचक जलदत सद रद पचकरक समपन हल सकद ।" 7. The impugned order does not in any way restricts the rights of the petitioner to contest the election for participating in the election process. The law is settled that once the election process has been set in motion, the Court should be slow in interfering with the election process. 8. Since in the present case, the petitioner has failed to point out any perversity or illegality in passing the impugned order causing prejudice to the petitioner at this stage, therefore, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. It is not in dispute that the Court has ample power to interfere with the election process when there is patent illegality, but in the present case, this Court finds that no grave illegality has been pointed out by the petitioner so as to persuade the Court to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the election process, therefore, the judgment of this Court in the case of Mohammad Tayyab (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10. Thus, for the reasons given above, the writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. 11. However, it is open to the petitioner, if so advised, to challenge the election after the election is concluded, if the election has not been held in accordance with law. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Mohit Digitally signed by :- MOHIT KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad