JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, J. 1. In this writ application the Petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire proceeding of Certificate Case No. 2818 of 1974-75. 2. In view of the points involved in this case it is not necessary to state the facts in details. Suffice it to say that the petitioner no. 1 was allegedly the Secretary of the respondent no. 2-Society and the petitioner no. 2 was the President of the said Society, which is registered under the Bihar and Orissa Cooperative Societies Act, 1935. The petitioners state in this writ application that in relation to a defalcation of certain amounts criminal case was initiated as against the petitioners and other members and further a proceeding was also initiated be the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies under the provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Cooperative Societies Act. The petitioners have categorically asserted in the writ application that no award or decree was passed as against the petitioners in the aforementioned proceeding which is contained in Annexure 1 to the writ application but inspite thereof a certificate proceeding was initiated as against the petitioner for realisation of purported amount awarded in the aforementioned case as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ application. 3. Mr. A. Bose, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, submitted that the writ petition should be dismissed only on the ground that the petitioners have resorted to 'suppressio veri and Suggetio falsi' inasmuch as the petitioner, earlier filed a writ application in this Court for the self same relief; but the said writ application was dismissed. The aforementioned facts have categorically been stated in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 1 which reads as follows : Paragraph 7. "That as per Award Decree passed by the Assistant Registrar, the Bank prayed for its execution against the above named 3 persons before the Certificate Officer-cum-District Co-operative Officer, Madhabani bearing Certificate Case No. 2818/75 and a requisition in this respect was filed. Notice under section 7 of Public Demands Recovery Act was issued to the petitioners but since the petitioners did not file any show cause to the Notice issued to them, therefore the Certificate Officer proceeded to attach the property of the petitioner and also issued warrant of arrest against Shri Nandan Maharaj, petitioner no. 1. Shri Nandan Maharaj was also arrested. "Paragraph 8. 1. Shri Nandan Maharaj was also arrested. "Paragraph 8. "That thereafter the petitioners moved this Hon'ble Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2809 of 1978 with a prayer for release of the petitioner no. 1 and for quashing the Award Decree and Certificate Proceeding thereof. The Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid writ petition passed an order for the release of the petitioner and the aforesaid case was dismissed by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.P. Singh and Mr. Justice Sateshwar Roy on 9.7.1979." Paragraph 9. "That after the dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 2809 of 1978, again steps were taken against the petitioners for realisation of the certificate amount and the petitioner again moved this Hon'ble Court for quashing the said certificate proceeding which was earlier rejected in C.W.J.C. No. 2809/78." 4. In paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit it has been asserted that after the dismissal of the aforementioned writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 2809 of 1978, the petitioner managed to replace the ordersheet of the award case no. 353 of 1972-73 with the help of the clerk 'of the Assistant Registrar and also prepared a forged ordersheet in league with them. According to the respondents the order as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ application as a forged and fabricated document. The respondents along with their counter affidavit have also annexed a copy of the writ application filed by the petitioner earlier being C.W.J.C. No. 2809 of 1978. A copy of the said writ application is contained In Annexure B to the counter affidavit. 5. Annexure 2 to the said writ application (Annexure B to the present counter affidavit) revealed that the amount covered under the aforementioned award case was to be realised from the Secretary of the respondent no. 1, bank. 6. From a perusal of the aforementioned writ application as contained in Annexure B to the counter affidavit it would appear that no statement was made therein to the affect that no award or decree had been passed as against the petitioner by the Assistant Registrar in the aforementioned case in exercise of his power conferred upon him under section 18 of the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act. 7. In this writ application it has been mentioned that while the earlier writ application was filed, the petitioner no. 1 was put in prison. 7. In this writ application it has been mentioned that while the earlier writ application was filed, the petitioner no. 1 was put in prison. It is not disputed by the petitioners that they filed the earlier writ application in this Court being C.W.J.C. No. 2809 of 1978 in this Court and further they do not deny that the said writ application was dismissed. 8. Mr. Kamlapati Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, submitted that as the earlier writ application was filed while the petitioner no. 1 was in prison and in view of the fact that the certified copy of the ordersheet in the connected award case could not be obtained, the dismissal of the said earlier writ application will not stand in the way of the petitioner in getting reliefs, from this Court, in this writ application. In my view, the present writ application is clearly barred under the principles of constructive res judicata. Although in view of the explanation appended to section 141 of the Code of Civil procedure, the provision thereof do not apply in a proceeding under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, but it is a well settled principle of law that even in a writ application the principles of res judicata and constructive res judicala and/or principles analogous thereto are applicable. Reference in this connection may be made to State of U.P. v. Nawab Hussain reported in 1977 Vol. 2 Supreme Court Cases page 806. 9. Apart from the principles of res Judicata lis embodied in section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure the general principles, of res judicata apply to the legal proceedings. Reference in this connection may be made to 1953 S.C. page 33 (Smt. Raj Lakshmi Dasi and others v. Banamali Sen and others, 1978 Kerala page 172 (Koran v. Kamala Shetty) and A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 2198 (Gulam Abbas and others v. State of U.P. and others). 10. In my view the position will not change only because at the time of filing of the earlier writ application the petitioner no. 1 was in jail. However, it may be mentioned that in any event the petitioner no. 2 could have procured the certified copy of the award case and could have taken the points involved in this case as admittedly he was president of the respondent no. 1 was in jail. However, it may be mentioned that in any event the petitioner no. 2 could have procured the certified copy of the award case and could have taken the points involved in this case as admittedly he was president of the respondent no. 1, Society at the material time. From a copy of the writ application in C.W.J.C. No. 2809 of 1978 as contained in Annexure B to the counter affidavit it appears that the affidavit in support thereof was sworn by the petitioner no. 2. 11. In this view of the matter, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot get any relief from this Court as the present writ application is clearly barred under the principles of res judicata. 12. Further, as mentioned hereinbefore, it has been asserted in the counter affidavit that after dismissal of the earlier writ application the petitioner managed to change the ordersheet in the award case in collusion with the clerk. The petitioner has not filed any reply and/or rejoinder thereto. The averments made in the counter affidavit thus, stands uncontroverted. In view of the petitioner's conduct, as asserted in the counter affidavit, the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. In the result, this writ application is dismissed with costs, which is assessed at Rs.1,000/-.