JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. The unsuccessful writ petitioner whose writ petition has been dismissed on the ground of being involved with disputed questions of fact has filed his writ appeal assailing the legality of the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge. Be it stated here that the finding regarding involvement of disputed questions of fact had been recorded by the learned Single Judge on the basis of the intervention of the third party who are the respondents No. 3 to 16 in this appeal. 2. The writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 148/06 was filed by the petitioner, namely Tripura Truck Owners' Syndicate, represented by the General Secretary for direction to the respondents, more particularly the respondent No. 2, to make the payments to the petitioners' syndicate in respect of utilization of the service of the trucks supplied by the petitioners' syndicate. Such a direction was prayed for in view of the issuance of the letter dated 10.03.06 by the Govt. of Tripura in the Directorate of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumers Affairs and addressed to the General Secretary of the petitioner's syndicate requesting him to obtain an order from the Court of law for making the payment. This writ proceeding necessarily relates to an earlier writ proceeding involving the same parties which was disposed of by a consent order. The said proceeding was registered and numbered as W.P.(C) No. 10/06 and was disposed of by order dated 17.02.06. The said proceeding had arisen in respect of a miscellaneous proceeding in title Suit No. 145/05 filed by the petitioner syndicate against one Shri Subrata Kr. Gupta and 31 others out of total 406 members of the petitioner's syndicate. In the Misc. case clearing No. 103/05 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. read with Section 151 of the C.P.C, the learned single Judge (Jr. Division), West Tripura, Agartala passed an order dated 07.12.05 in favour of the plaintiffs' syndicate restraining the defendants from perfuming any official transaction, namely collection of cheques or withdrawal of money etc. on behalf of the petitioners' syndicate. 3. Against the aforesaid order dated 07.12.05, the defendants preferred the appeal bearing No. 18/05 and the learned Addl. District Judge by his order dated 03.01.06 allowed the appeal setting aside the order dated 07.12.05 passed by the learned Single Judge (Jr. Division). on behalf of the petitioners' syndicate. 3. Against the aforesaid order dated 07.12.05, the defendants preferred the appeal bearing No. 18/05 and the learned Addl. District Judge by his order dated 03.01.06 allowed the appeal setting aside the order dated 07.12.05 passed by the learned Single Judge (Jr. Division). It was against this order the aforesaid writ proceeding in W.P.(C) No. 10/06 was initiated by the present petitioner's syndicate which was disposed of by order dated 17.2.06. the operative part of the order is quoted below: Be that as it may, having regard to the joint submissions noted above this writ petition and the C.M. Appl. No. 41 of 2006 are closed with the consent order that the judgment and order of the learned Additional District Judge, impunged herein are hereby set aside for the grounds mentioned above. It is made clear that the members of the Syndicate shall be at liberty to proceed for removal of any member of the Executive Committee on ground of fraud and/or other grounds as mentioned in the said sub-clause in accordance with the procedure laid down in Clause 30 or other relevant provisions. Till such removal the individual members of the duly elected Executive Committee shall, by virtue of the order of the learned trial court, continue to function as office bearers, any order, interim or final, of the learned trial Court, if any, to the contrary notwithstanding. 4. From the above order passed by this Court, there is no manner of doubt that till the office bearers or any member of the petitioners' syndicate are to be removed in accordance with the procedure laid down in this regard, they would continue to function as such. Pursuant to the said order passed by this Court, the petitioner syndicate approached the Govt. for payment of its bills by way of cheque or any other negotiable instrument to which the impugned Annexure-III communication dated 10/03/06 was made to the General Secretary of the petitioners syndicate requesting him to obtain the order from the Court of law. It was in those circumstances, the writ petition was filed which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 30.06.06. 5. We have heard Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned Counsel for the appellant assisted by Mr. S. Lodh, learned Advocate. We have also heard Mr. Somik Dev, learned Counsel representing the private respondents Mr. U.B. Saha learned Sr. It was in those circumstances, the writ petition was filed which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 30.06.06. 5. We have heard Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned Counsel for the appellant assisted by Mr. S. Lodh, learned Advocate. We have also heard Mr. Somik Dev, learned Counsel representing the private respondents Mr. U.B. Saha learned Sr. Govt. Advocate assisted by Mr. T.D. Majumdar, learned Advocate argued on behalf of the state respondents. At one alloys, it was agreed by the learned Counsel for the private respondents that if necessary payment is made through cheque handing over the same to the President of the petitioners' syndicate and the amounts payable to the members of the petitioners' syndicate are disbursed by cheques under the signature of the President, the private respondents would have no grievance. On this proposal, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that while it would not be a problem if the cheque is handed over to the president of he petitioners' syndicate, but the constitution of the syndicate may require signatures of the authorized office bearers in the cheque towards payment to the members. However, learned Counsel for the private respondents objected to the same. 6. From the above, it will be seen that the real issue is not the payment, but as to how and who would make the payment. It appears that the private respondents are adverse to the payment being made under the signatures of any of the office bearers, more particularly the General Secretary and Treasurer of the syndicate, other than the president. The finding of the learned Single Judge that the writ petition believes disputed questions of fact is primarily on the basis of the Civil Misc. Application filed by the private respondents for impleading them as party respondents to the writ petition. In the said application, the applicants who are the private respondents in the present proceeding while not disclosing their identity and also not stating as to whether they are the members of the petitioners' syndicate, referred to the aforesaid title. Suit and the orders passed therein and also the eventual order passed by this Court in the earlier writ proceeding. According to the private respondents numbering only 14, the General Secretary, Joint Secretary and the Treasurer of the petitioner's syndicate have been removed by the resolution adopted and signed by 177 members on 20.02.06. Suit and the orders passed therein and also the eventual order passed by this Court in the earlier writ proceeding. According to the private respondents numbering only 14, the General Secretary, Joint Secretary and the Treasurer of the petitioner's syndicate have been removed by the resolution adopted and signed by 177 members on 20.02.06. According to them such removal of the said members is in accordance with Clause 30 of the constitution of the Tripura Truck Owner's Syndicate. 7. The petitioners' syndicate filed an objection against such application for impleading the applicants as party respondents denying the contentions raised in the application. In its affidavit, they highlighted as to how the purported list of signatures showed only 77 members. The President of the syndicate on receipt of the said application found another representation filed by 185 members opposing the drive of the said members and upon scrutiny of the materials it was discovered that 66 signatories were common both for and against the proposal for convening the special meeting for removal of the aforesaid 3 office bearers. Since upon calculation of the total number of signatures in the requisition for convening the special general meeting, it was found that the required number is by far less than the requirement of the constitution, the president of the syndicate refused to call the meeting. It was also the stand of the petitioners syndicate that since the total number of its member stands at 406, the applicants and for that matter the members being less than the required numbers to form the requisite quorum so as to compel the president to convene the special general meeting, there was ho question of convening the same. 8. We have verified the documents relating to the requisition placed for convening the special general meeting and on perusal of the same we find that there was duplication of signatures giving rise to doubt about the very purpose of placing the requisition for convening the special general meeting and eventual purported holding of the same of their own without associating the petitioners' syndicate. A resolution adopted in that manner cannot give rise the legal status. Moreover if the resolution adopted was backed by 177 members, it is not understood as to why they were not before the writ Court and also are not before us. A resolution adopted in that manner cannot give rise the legal status. Moreover if the resolution adopted was backed by 177 members, it is not understood as to why they were not before the writ Court and also are not before us. It is not the case of 13 applicants filed application for getting impleaded in the will petition and are party respondents in this appeal that they have been authorized to represent by any other members, not to speak of 177 members. 9. There is another aspect of the matter. The constitution of the petitioners syndicate provides the definite methology towards removal of its members. Clause 17(g) and Clause 30 of the constitution are relevant for the purpose and the same will have to be read together. Clause 17(g) provides for removal of the office bearers or any member of the Executive Committee of the syndicate by the majority of the members in a general meeting for committing any fraud or having acted against the interest of the syndicate. However, the clause further provides for affording adequate and reasonable opportunity to the offending member before his removal. Clause 30 of the constitution provides for special general meeting in the event of failure of the President of the syndicate to call a special general meeting on requisition of not less than 1/3 of the total strength of the ordinary members of the syndicate. Such a meeting can be convened specifying the object of object for which the meeting is required. 10. In the instant case it is the case of the applicants/private respondents that 3 members of the petitioners' syndicate had to be removed for their involvement in fraud, corruption and action against the interest of the syndicate. Reading together Clause 17(g) and 30 of the constitution, there is no escape from compliance of the principles of natural justice in the event of seeking removal of any office bearers or any member of the Executive Committee of the syndicate on ground of fraud of having acted against the interest of the syndicate. Reading together Clause 17(g) and 30 of the constitution, there is no escape from compliance of the principles of natural justice in the event of seeking removal of any office bearers or any member of the Executive Committee of the syndicate on ground of fraud of having acted against the interest of the syndicate. While it is true that Clause 30 of the constitution empowers the member of this syndicate to call a meeting by electing the President from amongst them upon failure of the regular President to convene the meeting, but this procedure does not absolve the requirement to follow the principles of natural justice as envisaged under Clause 17(c) of the constitution of the syndicate. 11. Above controversy regarding applicability of Clause 17(g) even in Case of convening the special general meeting in Clause 30 of the constitution need not detain us in view of our clear finding that resolution adopted towards removal of the aforesaid three Executive Members of the syndicate is nonest in the eye of law and does not have any legal sanction behind. Possibly this is precisely the reason as to why the learned Counsel for the applicants private respondents during the course of hearing agreed for handing over the cheques to the President of the Syndicate, but insisted that disbursement of the due amounts to the members of the syndicate be not made involving the aforesaid three Executive Members. 12. During the course of hearing it was agreed by the learned Counsel for the parties that the amount involved payment of which is to be made by the State respondents to the petitioners' syndicate is not in dispute. But for the objection of the 13 applicants/private respondents, the matter is not in dispute Unless and until the office bearers of the petitioners syndicate are removed as per the procedure laid down in the constitution of the syndicate, they would continue to hold their respective office. It is also not the case of the applicants/private respondents that their term of office has expired. On perusal of the materials on record and upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears to us that there is some sort of go problem as regards the procedural aspect of disbursement of the amount to the members of the petitioners syndicate on whose behalf it has raised the bill and submitted to the Government. On perusal of the materials on record and upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears to us that there is some sort of go problem as regards the procedural aspect of disbursement of the amount to the members of the petitioners syndicate on whose behalf it has raised the bill and submitted to the Government. Really speaking are not concerned with methodology to be adopted towards disbursement of the proportionate shares of the amount to the members of the syndicate. Once it is agreed upon by the learned Counsel for the parties that the cheque be handed over to the President of the syndicate, we are of the considered opinion that the matter comes to an end. 13. In the earlier writ proceeding, this Court passed the agreed order operative part of which has been mentioned above. In view of such an order really speaking noting survives in the title Suit about which the learned single Judge has put emphasis. The disputed questions of fact as has been mentioned by the learned Single Judge is the creation of the applicants/private respondents. As noticed above, they are not the majority members out of 406 members of the syndicate and they are also not authorized to represent any members of the syndicate not to speach of the majority members. Going by the conduct of the applicants/private respondents, it gives an impression that for some undisclosed reasons they are only interested to thwart the process of disbursement of admissible amount to the petitioners' syndicate by the Govt. and consequently disbursement of the proportionate shares to the members of the syndicate for the services rendered by them. Had it been a genuine case of adopting resolution towards removal of the aforesaid three office bearers of the petitioners syndicate, the members who were instrumental towards removing them, would have been surely before us. It is in this context, the learned Counsel for the appellant placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court as reported in AIR 2006 SC 2431 (Ravi Rao Gaikwad and Ors. v. Rajajinagar Youth Social Welfare Assocn. and Ors.), submitted that the issue involved in the writ petition was really an issue to be decided by and between the parties to the writ petition and not at the intervention of the applicants/private respondents. 14. v. Rajajinagar Youth Social Welfare Assocn. and Ors.), submitted that the issue involved in the writ petition was really an issue to be decided by and between the parties to the writ petition and not at the intervention of the applicants/private respondents. 14. The decision on which the learned Counsel for the applicants private respondents has placed reliance, i.e. the Union of India v. Graphic Industries Co. and Ors. as reported in AIR 1995 SC 409 , is simply misplaced. In that case it was submitted that the action of the respondents in not releasing the bill amount was unfair. Since the impugned judgment before the Apex Court primarily dealt with the ground of unfairness, the Apex Court proceeded with the same with the question, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case it could justifiably be said that the appellants had acted unfairly in withholding the payment of the respondents. It was in that context, it was held that invocation of power under Article 226 would not be proper exercise of discretion. Unlike the said case, in the instant case, the State has not disputed its liability to make the payment and also the amount involved. It simply asked the writ petitioner/appellant to obtain an order from the Court. Such a course of action was adopted by the State in view of untenable objection raised by the applicants/private respondents and not on other ground. The objection of the applicants/private respondents having been overruled, there is no impediment towards making the payment to the petitioners' syndicate by the State Government and their query vide Anenxure-III letter dated 10.03.06 stands answered. 15. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the matter should be decided in the title Suit mentioned above and that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the involvement of disputed questions of fact are not sustainable in the given fact situation of the present case. After the consent order passed by this Court in the earlier writ proceeding, i.e. the order dated 17.02.06 in W.P.(C) No. 148/06, the petitioners' syndicate cannot be directed to resolved an issue, nonest in the eye of law, taking recourse to the pending title Suit, which really speaking after the aforesaid order of this Court may not survive any more. After the consent order passed by this Court in the earlier writ proceeding, i.e. the order dated 17.02.06 in W.P.(C) No. 148/06, the petitioners' syndicate cannot be directed to resolved an issue, nonest in the eye of law, taking recourse to the pending title Suit, which really speaking after the aforesaid order of this Court may not survive any more. However, we hasten to add that we are not expressing any final opinion and the matter is left open to be decided by the learned Single Judge. 16. As regards the plea of involvement of disputed question of fact, same being solely on the basis of the plea raised by the applicants/private respondents and not on any dispute regarding the amount involved and/or any objection and/or denial on the part of the State respondents about the admissibility of the said amount, in view of our above findings, we are constrained to hold that the writ petition does not involve any disputed questions of fact. This finding has found support from the submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicants/private respondents that they are agreeable if the cheque is handed over to the President of the petitioners syndicate. This is a virtual agreement for the payment to the writ petitioner and if that be so, the finding regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the basis of the objection raised by the applicants/private respondents does not survive any more. 17. Even otherwise also, we have considered the matter on merit as discussed above, and we do not find involvement of disputed questions of fact. The only issue is as to whether the petitioners' syndicate is entitled to receive the payment. It will be in the larger and greater interest of the members of the petitioners' syndicate that the State respondents make the payment to the petitioners syndicate so that the members of the syndicate in turn can receive their proportionate shares for the services rendered by them through the petitioners' syndicate. It is expected that the State respondents will take prompt action in the matter towards making the payment to the petitioners syndicate represented by its President and other Executive members through whom the writ petition was filed. 18. The writ appeal and for that matter the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated 30.06.06 passed in W.P.(C) No. 148/2006 stands set aside and quashed. 18. The writ appeal and for that matter the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated 30.06.06 passed in W.P.(C) No. 148/2006 stands set aside and quashed. However, in the given facts and circumstance of the case;, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.