PRADEEP Kant, Narayan Shukla, JJ. - (1.) This is a review application seeking review of our order dated 2. 5. 08 by means of which following reliefs were claimed: " (a) That by a writ, order or direction in the nature of quo warranto, the opposite parties no. 2, 3 and 4 be directed to show their legal authority to hold the election of the Oudh Bar Association without holding the Annual General Meeting and its decision thereon, ignoring altogether the general body every time; (b) That by a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, the opposite party no. 1 be directed under the supervision and the assistance of some Judicial officer appointed for the purpose by the Hon'ble Court, to manage the affairs for ascertaining the correct number of the members of the Oudh Bar Association, holding of Annual General Meeting and the ensuing elections in a given time frame; (c) That by issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, the opposite parties no. 2, 3 and 4 be restrained to act contrary to the provisions having been not ratified and decided by the general body in its meeting any point of time as per Rules; (d) That by issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari the clause 7 (a) as contained in Annexure No. 4 as it makes designated and not only senior most Advocates be quashed since it affects independent and free status of Bar; and (e) That the Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to pass any appropriate order in the case alongwith the cost of the writ petition. " The first point of review is that in the judgement in Writ Petition No. 4256 (MS) of 2006: Bijay Kumar Singh Parmar and another vs. State of U. P. and others and another connected petition, the learned Single Judge (Rajiv Sharma, J.) clarified in pen ultimate paragraph, that the observation made by the Court was under peculiar circumstances of the case and will not be made any precedence and, therefore, the said judgement could not have been relied upon for deciding the present writ petition. So far the judgement passed in the aforesaid writ petition is concerned, which relates to the elections of the last year, the learned Single Judge, being conscious of the fact that elections were not held during the prescribed period, on the suggestion of the members of the bar including the counsel for the petitioner and respondents as well as learned Standing Counsel, Committee of five members of the association was constituted to conduct the elections in accordance with bye-laws of the Society. The Court after recording a finding that there was no validly elected Committee, constituted the Committee of five senior most members of the bar and directed that the said Committee will exercise alls the powers of the Executive Committee/general Body and will also scrutinize the list of members/voter list of Oudh Bar Association and thereafter will take necessary steps for constitution of the newly Committee/executive of Oudh Bar Association. That being so, this very fact was considered by us also and finding that not exactly but somewhat akin to the present dispute, the controversy had arisen in the year 2006 and a direction was issued by the Court under which elections were held, the said judgement was taken into consideration and consequently the facts have been mentioned in the order and necessary discussions have been made. In our opinion, in the interest of the bar, a solution has been given by the Court to maintain harmony and to keep the house in order so that a valid Committee of Management takes over the charge. If the observations made and directives issued by the learned Single Judge for the previous election had been taken into account, it cannot be said that something new has been held by the Court, which is against any rule or that mere observation of the learned Single Judge that the order was passed in the peculiar circumstances and would not have any binding effect, could not have precluded the Court from assessing the situation and the existing circumstances for the present elections also. The question as to whether the petition was maintainable or not is not of much importance in view of our findings recorded in the judgement, particularly when in pursuance of the aforesaid judgement, elections have been peacefully held and newly elected Committee of Management is functioning without any objection or protest from any corner whatsoever. So far the plea that certain amounts were required to be deposited by the prospective candidates for contesting the elections of different offices, namely, Rs. 7500/- for the post of President for which petitioner was a willing candidate but, in fact, could not contest the elections because of the aforesaid requirement of depositing security money is concerned, that is the matter which cannot be seen in writ jurisdiction nor was relevant for the issue raised, namely, holding of elections. In fact, the plea of the petitioner that elections should be directed to be held by the agency of the Registrar has not been accepted and the observations made in this regard in the earlier writ petition of 2006, have been given due weight. The last point that certain facts have been brought on record, which were not on record of the writ petition also does not merit any consideration. The applicant, who personally argued the matter, in support of his plea, has drawn attention of the Court to paragraphs 24, 25 to 31 of the judgement. A perusal of the writ petition itself reveals that the petitioner was conscious and had full knowledge that the model bye-laws have been adopted by the Committee constituted by the learned Single Judge in the earlier writ petition and that the Committee had already adopted by the model bye-laws. This is evident by the fact that the petitioner in his writ petition has raised a plea that bye-laws of the Oudh Bar Association would be amended only by following the procedure as given under the rules and general body having not adopted the bye-laws, it could not be said that they have been validly adopted, particularly when they have not been ratified by the general body. The pleadings raised by the applicant himself goes to establish that the model bye-laws were adopted by the Elders Committee but since they were not got ratified by the general body, therefore, they were said not to be a valid adoption. Once it was inferred by the pleadings in the writ petition that bye-laws were adopted by the Committee, the said fact was very well considered by the Court. The Court has also gone into the effect of such adoption of the bye-laws by the Elders Committee. It may also be put on record that during the course of arguments, it was brought to the notice of the Court by the members of the Elders Committee, constituted under the orders of the Court, that the papers regarding the adoption of the bye-laws have been communicated to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and these papers were also placed before the Court. It is under these circumstances, the Court took judicial notice of the factum of adoption of model bye- laws by the Elders Committee and it being a fact, which has not been disputed even in the review petition, coupled with the pleadings of the applicant himself, it cannot be said that any new finding has been recorded which could not be in the knowledge of the Court or was not brought to the knowledge of the Court. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any good ground in the review application. The review application is dismissed. .;