ORDER : NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J. 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for declaring the election process of Indian Red Cross Society Chhattisgarh State Management Committee for 2024-2027 held on 11.04.2026 as null and void and also for conducting afresh election. 2. The brief facts as reflected from records are that:- (A) The petitioner is a life member of the Indian Red Cross Society, Chhattisgarh State Branch (for short “the Society”). It is case of the petitioner that as per the provisions of Indian Red Cross Societies Act, 1920 (for short “the Act, 1920”), the Collector of the District will be the President of District Indian Red Cross Society and the Chief Medical and Health Officer of the District will be Secretary of the District Indian Red Cross Society accordingly, the President and the Secretary of Ambikapur District Red Cross Society have nominated the petitioner for attending the meeting of State Management Committee vide memo dated 09.04.2025 as District representative of District Society Surguja for election for election of State Level Society for the period 2024-2027 as per the Indian Red Cross Society Branch Committee Rules, 2017 (for short “the Rules, 2017”). (B) It is also case of the petitioner that the petitioner marked his presence in the meeting and signed in the attendance sheet as well as meeting register but the Chief Executive Officer did not allow him to cast his vote which is in violation of the the Rules, 2017. It is also case of the petitioner that as per Schedule-I Rule 10 (2) of the Rules, 2017, the petitioner is the life member and Rule 7(b) of the Rules, 2017, he has right to cast vote. It is also case of the petitioner that as per Schedule-III Rule 12, the Management Committee of the State and Union Territory will consist of Chairman, Treasurer, Vice-Chairman who shall be elected by the Management Committee from amongst themselves in the first meeting held after its composition or election. Four members of the State or Union Territory Branch from amongst of patrons, vice-patrons and life members of the branch as decided by the management committee and one representative elected by one District Branch Committee. The Rules further provide that the General Secretary of the State or Union Territory Branch will be member, secretary and non-voting members. Four members of the State or Union Territory Branch from amongst of patrons, vice-patrons and life members of the branch as decided by the management committee and one representative elected by one District Branch Committee. The Rules further provide that the General Secretary of the State or Union Territory Branch will be member, secretary and non-voting members. The Rule further provides that the management committee may co-opt up to five members namely Ministry of Health, Education, Social Welfare etc. having expertise in any part of the organization functions. (C) It is contended that therefore, it is incumbent upon the respondents to conduct election for all the District Branch Committee. The respondents have conducted election for all the 33 District Branch Committee but they have deliberately not conducted election for Surguja District Branch Committee and without conducting the same, the election of the State Level Society is illegal. Hence this petition for quashing of the election of State Level Society for the year 2024-2027. 3. The petitioner has also prayed for stay of the election result and handing over charges to the newly elected body till final disposal of the petition. This Court vide order dated 16.04.2025 has stayed the election in respect of Indian Red Cross Society, Chhattisgarh State and also directed that even if the respondents have taken oath, they shall not to do any further activity in respect of the election till the next date of hearing. Thereafter, the interim order was modified vide order dated 08.05.2025 and it has been directed that elected office bearers shall work as volunteers and not as office bearers and the petitioner was also at liberty to work and extend his service as a volunteer. 4. Respondents No. 4 & 5 filed their return raising preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition and on merit, it has been contended that :- (A) His Excellency the Governor of State of Chhattisgarh has dissolved the State Level Committee and has permitted to constitute new State Level Committee vide its memo dated 16.02.2024. 4. Respondents No. 4 & 5 filed their return raising preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition and on merit, it has been contended that :- (A) His Excellency the Governor of State of Chhattisgarh has dissolved the State Level Committee and has permitted to constitute new State Level Committee vide its memo dated 16.02.2024. In pursuance of the resolution of the Committee and permission granted by His Excellency the Governor of the State of Chhattisgarh, respondent No. 4 vide its memo dated 07.03.2024 has directed all the Collectors and President of District Branch Red Cross Society to constitute District Management Committee of their District and thereafter nominated a representative to participate in the State Level Management Committee. (B) It has also been directed that it is also certified if the names have previously been sent, it has been sent through election only and has directed them to submit this information up to 31.05.2024. Thereafter another memo dated 13.08.2024 was issued wherein it was directed to constitute a District Level Committee as per Chapter-VI Schedule-I (C) and submit information by 31.03.2024. Again a guideline was issued on 11.09.2024 wherein the schedule for election was prescribed and as per the schedule, list of members should be finalized by 30.09.2024 and notice for conducting meeting by latest 15 th October thereafter election of Chairman, Vice-chairman and Treasurer and representative for State Level, the procedure should be completed by 15 th November and thereafter the information should be sent to respondent No. 4 by 30 th November. Again similar memo was sent on 24.12.2024, 26.03.2025 but no action has been taken at Ambikapur District for conducting election of District Level Committee. (C) The election was conducted for State Level Committee as per Rules, 2017 on 11.04.2025 and the details of election result are as under:- for the post of Chairman , Toman Sahu has obtained 18 votes whereas Ashok Kumar Agrawal from Surajpur has received 13 votes. for post of Vice-Chairman , Rupesh Kumar Panigrahi from Jashpur has received 20 votes whereas Alexendar M. Cherian from Bastar has received 11 votes. for the post of Treasurer , Sanjay Patel from Balodabazar has received 17 votes whereas Yogesh Jain from Korba has received 14 votes. 5. On the basis of votes obtained by the candidates, Toman Sahu, Rupesh Kumar Panigrahi, Sanjay Patel were elected as Chairman, Vice-Chairman & Treasurer respectively. 6. for the post of Treasurer , Sanjay Patel from Balodabazar has received 17 votes whereas Yogesh Jain from Korba has received 14 votes. 5. On the basis of votes obtained by the candidates, Toman Sahu, Rupesh Kumar Panigrahi, Sanjay Patel were elected as Chairman, Vice-Chairman & Treasurer respectively. 6. It has also been contended that as per Schedule-I Rule 7(b) of the Rules, 2017, the members have right to elect and to be elected at the District Level and if elected, in the assemblies of Higher Levels of Organizations. The petitioner was not elected as District Level and he was only allowed to participate in the meeting, therefore, he has rightly been denied to cast vote. It has been further contended that Schedule- II of the Rules, 2017 provides for procedure of conducting the election and according to which, they have conducted the election. It has been further contended that they have also placed on record the documents to demonstrate that if the petitioner is allowed to cast vote, the same will not adversely affect the entire election result, as such there is no illegality in conduction of election and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. The State have filed their return supporting the stand taken by respondents No. 4 & 5 and it has been contended that the election has been conducted in accordance with the rules. It has also been contended that the interim order passed by this Court is creating hindrance in smooth function of Society which may have serious consequences and would pray for vacating interim order as well as dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Respondents No. 7 to 9 have also filed their return supporting the stand taken by respondents No. 4 & 5 and would submit that the election has been conduct in accordance with rules and since the petitioner was not eligible to cast vote, he has rightly been denied to cast vote as such neither the conduction of election nor restraining the petitioner to cast vote is illegal warranting interference of this Court and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition and also prayed for vacating interim order. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the contention made in the petition would submit that the petitioner is eligible to cast vote and to substantiate his submission, she would refer to Rule 7(b) of the Rules, 2017. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the contention made in the petition would submit that the petitioner is eligible to cast vote and to substantiate his submission, she would refer to Rule 7(b) of the Rules, 2017. She would further submit that the petitioner is life member of the Society and the right of the petitioner has been adversely affected hence he has locus standi to file this petition. She would further submit that since without rhyme and reason, his right to cast vote has been violated, therefore, the entire election process for the year 2024-2027 of State Level Committee is illegal. It has also been contended that the respondents deliberatly have not conducted the election of District Level Committee depriving their legal right, as such, the entire election process conducted by the respondents is actuated with malafide hence, the election deserves to be quashed and would pray for allowing the writ petition. To substantiate her submission, she would refer to the judgments in case of Surjit Singh Gandhi Vs. Indian Red Cross Society and others [ (1998) 8 SCC 450 ], The District Red Cross Society, Sirsa Vs. Radha Kishan Rajpal & another [2004 SCC OnLine P & H 1376], Dr. Swaran Sharma Vs. State of Haryana & another [I.L.R. Punjab and Haryana 2008 (1) 22], Ganeswar Rout Vs. Collector-cum-Chairman, Dist. Red Cross Branch, Balasore & others [2018 SCC OnLine Ori 338], Dr. Bholanath Mishra Vs. State of Odisha & others [2023 SCC OnLine Ori 5906], New Balaji Chemist (M/s) Vs. Indian Red Cross Society (M.P. State Branch) & another [ILR (2018) M.P. 894]. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate the facts and the Rules, 2017 and would contend that election has been conducted in accordance with the rules and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 12. From submissions made by the parties, the Point emerges for determination of this Court is:- “Whether the election has been conducted following the procedure of law or not and if not then what will be its effect? 13. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 12. From submissions made by the parties, the Point emerges for determination of this Court is:- “Whether the election has been conducted following the procedure of law or not and if not then what will be its effect? 13. To appreciate this Point, it is expedient for this Court to extract the relevant provisions of the Indian Red Cross Society Branch Committees Rules, 2017 which are as under:- “ Chapter 1- 2. Definitions .- (1) (c) "Branch Committee" means the State Branch Committee, the Union Territory Branch Committee and the District Branch Committee, respectively; (d) "Committees" means the Management Committee, the Executive Committee, the Finance Committee, the State Youth Red Cross Committee and the Junior Red Cross Committee respectively; (e) "Management Committee" means the Committee at State Level, Union Territory Level and District Level respectively; Schedule- 1 (Rule 10) - Members shall be enrolled at the district or sub-district levels. State Branches shall enroll members only when the District or Sub-District Branches are not constituted. For this, the explicit permission or the national managing body is required. 7. Rights of members - The members shall have the following rights, namely:- (a) to vote in the meetings as per rules; (b) they have the right to elect and to be elected at the District level and if elected, in the assemblies of higher levels of the organisation; (c) to participate in the various Red Cross Programmes or campaigns or activities and undertake voluntary service; (d) annual members shall have no right to vote. Schedule III (Rule 12) 1(1) Composition of the State and Union Territory Managing Committees:- The Managing Committee of State and Union Territory Branch shall comprise of the following, namely:- (a) Chairman; (b) Treasurer; (c) the Vice Chairman shall be elected by the Managing Committee from amongst themselves at the first meeting held after its composition or election; (d) four members of the State or Union Territory Branch from amongst the Patrons, Vice Patrons and Life Members of the Branch as decided by the Managing Committee; (e) One representative elected by each district Branch Committee; (f) General Secretary of the State or Union Territory Branch will be the member-secretary and non-voting member; (g) the representative of the St. John Ambulance State Council; (h) the Managing Committee may co-opt up to 5 members namely the representatives from the Ministry of Health, Education, Social Welfare etc.) having expertise in any part of the organizations functions.” 14. From perusal of records and the Rules, 2017, it is quite vivid that until and unless the petitioner is elected at District Level, he has no right to cast vote in the assemblies of Higher Levels of organization. The petitioner was not elected as District Level as no election was conducted for Ambikapur District Level Red Cross Society and he has been only granted permission to appear in the meeting, as such he has rightly been denied to cast vote, therefore, it cannot be held that there is violation of Rule 7 of the Rules, 2017 which may vitiate the election conducted for the year 2024-2027. 15. Even otherwise from perusal of records annexed with the writ petition, it is clear that if the petitioner is allowed to cast vote then also it will not change the result of election for the State Level Committee as there is vast difference between elected candidate and runner up candidate which is varied from 5, 9 & 3 votes for the post of Chairman, Vice- chairman and Treasure respectively. As such, even if the petitioner is allowed to cast vote then also the result of the election will not be changed, as such it cannot be held that by not allowing the petitioner to cast vote, the result may be changed, as such there is no illegality or irregularity in conduction of the election or the result which necessitates this Court to exercise its power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. Even otherwise the law with regard to grant of injunction in the election matter has been well settled by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Supreme Court Bar Association & others Vs. B.D. Kaushik [(2011) 13 SCC 774] wherein it has been held at paragraph 39 as under:- “39. This Court in catena of reported decisions has laid down the principle that interim relief, which has tendency to allow the final relief claimed in the proceedings, should not be granted lightly. No special circumstances have been mentioned in the two impugned orders which would justify decreeing the suits at interim stage. This Court in catena of reported decisions has laid down the principle that interim relief, which has tendency to allow the final relief claimed in the proceedings, should not be granted lightly. No special circumstances have been mentioned in the two impugned orders which would justify decreeing the suits at interim stage. The relief granted by the learned Judge at the interim stage was not warranted by the facts of the case at all. Therefore, the impugned orders are also liable to be set aside on this ground.” 17. In light of the law laid down Hon’ble the Supreme Court, the interim order passed by this Court on 25.04.2025 and subsequently modified on 08.05.2025 deserve to be vacated. 18. So far as the law of interference of Courts in election matter is concerned, it is well settled position of law that once election process starts, the Court interference is not called for and the writ petitions preferred under Article 226/2227 of the Constitution of India should not normally entertain by the High Court and should re-deligate the parties to take recourse of filing election petition before appropriate forum. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Shaji K. Joseph Vs. V. Viswanath & others [ (2016) 4 SCC 429 ] has held in paragraphs 15 to 17 as under:- “15. In our opinion, the High Court was not right in interfering with the process of election especially when the process of election had started upon publication of the election programme on 27-1-2011 and more particularly when an alternative statutory remedy was available to Respondent 1 by way of referring the dispute to the Central Government as per the provisions of Section 5 of the Act read with Regulation 20 of the Regulations. So far as the issue with regard to eligibility of Respondent 1 for contesting the election is concerned, though prima facie it appears that Respondent 1 could contest the election, we do not propose to go into the said issue because, in our opinion, as per the settled law, the High Court should not have interfered with the election after the process of election had commenced. The judgments referred to hereinabove clearly show the settled position of law to the effect that whenever the process of election starts, normally courts should not interfere with the process of election for the simple reason that if the process of election is interfered with by the courts, possibly no election would be completed without the court's order. Very often, for frivolous reasons, candidates or others approach the courts and by virtue of interim orders passed by courts, the election is delayed or cancelled and in such a case the basic purpose of having election and getting an elected body to run the administration is frustrated. For the aforestated reasons, this Court has taken a view that all disputes with regard to election should be dealt with only after completion of the election. 16. This Court, in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer has held that once the election process starts, it would not be proper for the courts to interfere with the election process. Similar view was taken by this Court in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra [ (2001) 8 SCC 509 ]. 17. Thus, in view of the aforestated settled legal position, the High Court should not have interfered with the process of election. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment [2011 SCC OnLine Ker 1676] and direct that the result of the election should be published. We are sure that due to interim relief granted by this Court, Respondent 1 must not have been permitted to contest the election. It would be open to Respondent 1 to approach the Central Government for referring the dispute, if he thinks it proper to do so. No issue with regard to limitation will be raised if Respondent 1 initiates an action under Section 5 of the Act within four weeks from today.” 19. Considering the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court and also considering the provisions of Rules, 2017, it is quite vivid that the petitioner has rightly been not allowed to cast vote and there is vast difference of the vote between the elected and runner up candidate which does not affect election result. As such, the Point emerged for determination of this Court, is answered against the petitioner and in favour of the respondents. 20. As such, the Point emerged for determination of this Court, is answered against the petitioner and in favour of the respondents. 20. The writ petition sans merit is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. No order as to cost. 21. The interim order passed by this Court on 25.04.2025 and modified on 08.05.2025 is hereby vacated.