THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN C.R.P. Nos.1106 and 1111 OF 2008 COMMON ORDER: Both these revision petitions are filed by respondents 3,4, 6 and 7 in O.P.No.1991 of 2005 aggrieved by the order passed by the Election Tribunal i.e., II Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in his order dated 8.2.2008. The 1st respondent in both these revision petitions is the election petitioner. The election of the revision petitioners herein was subjected to challenge on various grounds. Suffice to note that the Election Tribunal, by its order dated 8.2.2008, allowed the petition declaring the minutes of meeting dated 15.5.2005, whereby the respondents proclaimed themselves as the duly elected executive committee members of the petitioner’s association, as null, void and not binding on the petitioner’s association. The Election Tribunal restrained the respondents from acting as the office bearers of the petitioner’s association. The petitioner’s association was directed to follow the bye-laws, and hold a general body meeting of the association in April, 2008 and follow the bye-laws in letter and spirit. It is this order which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court in these revision petitions. Sri V.Hariharan and Sri A.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, would raise several contentions including on the observations made by the Election Tribunal casting aspersions on the integrity of the individuals concerned. Learned counsel would, however, fairly state that the term of office of the office bearers of the 1st respondent – association, for which elections were held on 15.5.2008, has since come to an end. As the term of office of the 1st respondent – association has admittedly come to an end, no useful purpose would now be served in adjudicating the order under challenge, in these revision petitions, on merits. The C.R.Ps. have become infructuous. It is made clear that the observations made by the Election Tribunal on the integrity of the petitioners herein shall not be considered as conclusive, and such questions are left open for adjudication in appropriate proceedings. Subject to the above observations, the C.R.Ps. fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. ___________ 24-6-2010 asp