CWP 561/2006 27.8.2009 Present: Mr. Prince Chauhan, vice counsel for the petitioners. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. Advocate General, for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. CMP No. 5383/2009. The State has sought clarification of following potion of our judgment:- “As far as the prayer for setting aside the order of suspension of the Managing Committee is concerned, we are of the considered view that the said order need not be revoked in view of the directions that we have issued here-in-above.” In our view, this judgment is absolutely clear and it is apparent that we have not interfered with the orders passed by officers of the State in respect of the suspension of the Managing Committee. However, since the clarification has sought for, we may add that the petitioners had, by an amendment, specifically challenged the order whereby the suspension of the Society was set aside. We had dismissed this portion of the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, the Managing Committee was to continue and now, as submitted by the State, fresh elections were -2- to be held on 17th, 18th and 19th August, 2009. In case, those elections have been held, Managing Committee shall function in accordance with the election and in case, for reasons, elections have not been held, the State shall ensure that fresh elections are held in accordance with law. The application stands disposed of. (Deepak Gupta),J (Surinder Singh),J August 27, 2009 (cm)