Judgment : The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition, the order dated 17-1-2007 at Annexure-S passed by the first respondent dropping the entire proceedings on the ground that it is not necessary. 2. Thecase of the first petitioner is that it commenced its activities as an Association of persons for promoting software related test experiences under the name of "STeP-In Forum" on a non-profit basis. One Arunkumar Khannur was also one of the initial members of the said Association. He resigned from the membership of the Association on 23-11-2005. He, along with others, registered the second respondent as a society under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, using the petitioner's name. On coming to know of such mischievous Act, on 21-4-2006 petitioner made a representation to the first respondent to cancel the second respondent's registration. On 29-5-2006 the petitioner has incorporated a company under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956. When the petitioner's representation was not considered by the authorities, it filed A writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 11111 of 2006, for a mandamus to consider his complaint. This Court allowed the writ petition and directed the authorities to consider the representation dated 21-4-2006 and 29-5-2006, where he had sought for cancellation of registration of the second respondent. On 24-11-2006 authority passed an order directing the second respondent to change its name. The said order was challenged by the second respondent before this Court in W.P. No. 17529 of 2006. This Court while entertaining the writ petition granted an interim order to stay of cancellation of registration of a period of four weeks. Petitioner entered appearance and filed detailed statement of objections and also an application for vacating stay. However, on 12-1-2007, interim stay was extended. Behind the back of the petitioner, the second respondent made a representation to the first respondent to withdraw the order of cancellation. On such representation, the impugned order came to be passed cancelling the earlier cancellation. In view of the fact that the second respondent got the relief from the first respondent itself, he withdrew the Writ Petition No. 17529 of 2009 (sic) as it has become infructuous. Aggrieved by the said impugned order the petitioner is before this Court. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for both parties. 4. The aforesaid facts are not in dispute. Aggrieved by the said impugned order the petitioner is before this Court. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for both parties. 4. The aforesaid facts are not in dispute. The only point that was urged is, in the absence of specific provision in the statute authorising the first respondent to review its earlier order, the impugned order which is in the nature of a review of an earlier order is one without jurisdiction and therefore, liable to be quashed. In support of the said contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Patel Narshi Thakershi and Others V Pradyurnansinghji Ar junnsinghji AIR 1970 SC 1273 . The Supreme Court dealing with the power of review has held as under: "It is well-settled that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. No provision in the Act was brought to our notice from which it could be gathered that the Government had power to review its own order. If the Government had no power to review its own order, it is obvious that its delegates could not have reviewed its order". 5. In theinstant case, as per Annexure-P the first respondent passed an order dated 24-11-2006 directing the second respondent to change the name of its society. The second respondent was informed that in the event of failing to do the same, action shall be initiated against them in accordance with the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act. It is that order which in effect has been reviewed by the second respondent by the impugned order. No provision in the Act or the Rules is brought to my notice from which it could be gathered that the first respondent had the power to review its own order. Therefore, the first respondent had no power to review its own order. Therefore, the judgment of the Apex Court in the aforesaid case applies with all force to the facts of this case and therefore, the impugned order is one without jurisdiction. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent contended, even the order at Annexure-P passed is one without jurisdiction and therefore, this Court should hold so in these proceedings. 7. Annexure-P was the subject-matter of the writ petition in W.P. No. 17529 of 2006. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent contended, even the order at Annexure-P passed is one without jurisdiction and therefore, this Court should hold so in these proceedings. 7. Annexure-P was the subject-matter of the writ petition in W.P. No. 17529 of 2006. By virtue of the impugned order, the petitioner has withdrawn the said writ petition and this Court was precluded from going into the validity of the said order. In the light of the quashing of the impugned order, it is open to the petitioner to seek for recalling the order of dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition as infructuous and agitate the said contention. The question whether the order at Annexure-P is correct or valid in law does not arise for consideration in these proceedings as that is the subject-matter of the aforesaid writ petition. In that matter, I decline to consider the said request. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (1) Thewrit petition is allowed. (2) Theimpugned order is set aside. (3) Liberty is reserved to the second respondent to revive the writ petition which had been dismissed as infructuous. Parties to bear their own