JUDGMENT S. PANDA, J. : In this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 9.10.2009 passed by the Inspector General of Registration (IGR), Cuttack approving reconstituted Governing Body and the amended bye-law of Mahila Vikash (NGO), Tarbod in the district of Nuapada. 2. Mahila Vikash, Tarbod in the district of Nuapada is a non-governmental organisation established under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter called “the Act”) in the year 1994 and duly registered before opposite party No.1 bearing Registration No.19474/87 of 1993-94. The petitioner claims to be the Founder Member-cum-Treasurer of the said organization. Opposite party No.2 is the Under Secretary (Registration) Office of the Inspector General of Registration, Cuttack. Opposite party No.4 is the Founder Member-cum-Secretary of the said organisa¬tion. As per the bye-law, both the petitioner and opposite party No.2 are joint signatories in respect of any transaction with the Bank. The organisation has been running smoothly with the cooper¬ation of all members and District Administration and funding agencies. As per the bye-law, the Governing Body of the said Organisation was constituted consisting of the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer and General Body Members and it has been running the Society from the date of its foundation. 3. While the matter stood thus, the entire dispute started in the year 2008 and all members of the General Body expressed their concern with regard to the interference of outsider, who is the brother of opposite party No.4 and non-transferring of owner¬ship of the vehicle and office building in the name of the Socie¬ty and monetary transaction. 4. The petitioner received an information that a sum of Rs.2,30,319/- was to be withdrawn from the Accounts of the Organ¬isation by opposite party No.4. Hence, he filed objection before the IGR, Cuttack not to approve the allegedly reconstituted Governing Body and the amended bye-law. As regards the illegal withdrawal of money, he intimated all the Banks not to allow any withdrawal from the Bank. He also filed ICC Case No.36 of 2008 before the learned S.D.J.M., Nuapada which is pending. The antic¬ipatory bail application filed by opposite party No.4 was reject¬ed by this Court. The IGR, Cuttack also requested the Addl. District Magistrate-cum-District Registrar, Nuapada to enquire into the matter and submit his report. In his turn, on 21.1.2009 the Addl. He also filed ICC Case No.36 of 2008 before the learned S.D.J.M., Nuapada which is pending. The antic¬ipatory bail application filed by opposite party No.4 was reject¬ed by this Court. The IGR, Cuttack also requested the Addl. District Magistrate-cum-District Registrar, Nuapada to enquire into the matter and submit his report. In his turn, on 21.1.2009 the Addl. District Magistrate, enquired into the matter and sub¬mitted his report (vide Annexure-1) holding that the reconstitu¬tion of the Governing Body of the Organisation, removal of the petitioner and withdrawal of money by opposite party No.4 were illegal. The IGR on receiving the said enquiry report and after perusal of the entire record, by his order dated 17.3.2009 re¬jected the proposed amendment of bye-law due to procedural irreg¬ularity and also the constitution of the Governing Body. Opposite party No.4 either challenged the said order nor preferred any writ application. A meeting of the Executive Body was convened on 19.4.2009 at Bhubaneswar and the present petitioner was asked to attend the same. By the time the petitioner arrived there, nobody was present there except opposite party No.4. He was insisted to sign on the blank Resolution Book which the petitioner refused. 5. Thereafter, behind the back of the petitioner, they passed a resolution to hold General Body meeting and election on 4.5.2009 to elect the new Executive Body of Mahila Vikash, Tar¬bod. Therefore, the petitioner filed Civil Suit No.42 of 2009 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuapada praying that the amendment of the bye-law and the resolution in question be declared as illegal, invalid and inoperative, opposite party No.4 be injuncted from holding election on 4.5.2009 and the Organisation be not allowed to operate the Bank Account standing in its name. On 2.5.2009, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Divi¬sion) passed an order of status quo. The lower Court record reveals that opposite party No.4 filed a Caveat petition before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) and challenging the order of status quo opposite party No.4 preferred M.J.A. No.4 of 2009 before the learned Additional District Judge, Nuapada. On 22.5.2009, the learned Additional District Judge stayed the order of status quo passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) till 23.6.2009. However, in the meantime, opposite party No.4 proceeded with the election on 4.5.2009 inspite of the order of status quo. On 22.5.2009, the learned Additional District Judge stayed the order of status quo passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) till 23.6.2009. However, in the meantime, opposite party No.4 proceeded with the election on 4.5.2009 inspite of the order of status quo. The present petitioner challenging the order dated 22.5.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, filed W.P.(C) No.8272 of 2009 before this Court. The said writ applica¬tion was disposed of with a direction to the Addl. District Judge to hear the appeal and pass a reasoned order and till that date the stay order passed by the learned Addl.District Judge on 22.5.2009 was stayed. The learned Addl.District Judge heard the matter on 9.7.2009 and allowed the appeal by setting aside the ad interim order of status quo passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) and directed the Court below to hear the suit and dispose of the same within a period of six months. Challeng¬ing the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.10245 of 2009 before this Court which is pending. While the matter stood thus, on 9.10.2009 the IGR approved the reconstituted Governing Body as per the election dated 4.5.2009. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the instant writ application. 6. Opposite party No.4 also filed two suits, i.e., Civil Suit Nos.81 and 82 of 2009, before the Court below for a declara¬tion that the Governing Body reconstituted on 4.5.2009 be de¬clared as legal and a direction to the Bank authority to allow them to operate the Bank Account. Both the suits are pending as the State Bank of India of Nuapada Branch and Komna Branch did not allow it to operate the Bank Accounts. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while the order of status quo dated 2.5.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Civil Suit No.42 of 2009 was continuing, opposite party No.4 conducted the election on 4.5.2009. Therefore, the holding of the election and the declara¬tion of the result thereof are illegal as the same were done in violation of the Court’s order. Hence, no action should have been taken in approving the said election. 8. Learned counsel for opposite party No.4 submitted that in the meantime opposite party No.4 has withdrawn Civil Suit No.81 & 82 of 2009 filed by it. Hence, no action should have been taken in approving the said election. 8. Learned counsel for opposite party No.4 submitted that in the meantime opposite party No.4 has withdrawn Civil Suit No.81 & 82 of 2009 filed by it. However, to that effect, he filed a memo along with an affidavit of the learned counsel who was engaged in the Court below. In the said affidavit, it was stated by the learned counsel for opposite party No.4 that in Civil Suit Nos.81 and 82 of 2009 the plaintiff was no longer interested to proceed with both the suits and had instructed him to withdraw the same. However, because of illness of the plaintiff, the same could not be filed earlier. He further submitted that since the appellate Court directed the learned Civil Judge (Senior Divi¬sion) to conclude the trial of Civil Suit No.42 of 2009, this Court may direct to conclude the same within a specified time. 9. Section 4 of the Act provides that the list of office bearers of the managing committee/executive body is to be filed before the Registrar of Societies once in every year on or before the fourteenth day succeeding the day on which, according to the rules of the Society, the annual general meeting of the Society is held.So far as the State of Orissa is concerned, it has amend¬ed the Act by the Societies Registration (Orissa Amendment) Act, 1969 inserting Sections 4-A, 4-B and 4-C in the Act. Section 4-A provides that in case there is any change in personnel on the list filed under Section 4 during the year to which such list relates, it shall be intimated to the Registrar of Societies within two months of such change. Section 4-B imposes obligation on the office bearers to send the list of changes. Section 4-C provides that non-compliance of preceding provi¬sion that is Section 4-A would be a punishable offence and the person found guilty of, can be imposed a fine. 10. From the aforesaid statutory provisions it is evident that the list of the office bearers of the managing committee shall be made available to the Registrar of Societies on or before the fourteenth day succeeding the date of annual general body meeting of the Society. If there is any change subsequent thereto, it shall also be communicated. 11. 10. From the aforesaid statutory provisions it is evident that the list of the office bearers of the managing committee shall be made available to the Registrar of Societies on or before the fourteenth day succeeding the date of annual general body meeting of the Society. If there is any change subsequent thereto, it shall also be communicated. 11. From the facts narrated above, it appears that while the order of status quo dated 2.5.2009 was continuing, opposite party No.4 amended the bye-law of the society and re-constituted the Governing Body. The IGR without taking note of the said fact approved the amended bye-law and the newly constituted Governing Body. Hence, the order dated 9.10.2009 passed by the IGR is kept in abeyance. 12. A memo has been filed by opposite party No.4 on 4.2.2010 along with a certified copy of the order dated 1.2.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuapada in Civil Suit No.81 of 2009 showing therein that Civil Suit No.81 of 2009 is disposed of as withdrawn. While considering the re-constitution of the Governing Body, the Court below will take into consideration the provisions of law referred to above and examine whether the said re-constitution of the Governing Body was in conformity with the provisions contained in the Act and fulfills the other requirements mentioned in the bye-law and whether the termination of Membership of the Society is in ac¬cordance with the bye-law. 13. In the result, this Court sets aside the approval order dated 9.10.2009 granted by the IGR and directs the trial Court to conclude the suit as early as possible keeping in mind the obser¬vations made in this writ application. The writ application is accordingly disposed of. I.M. QUDDUSI, ACJ. I agree. Application disposed of.