JUDGMENT : B.N. Mahapatra, J. - In this writ petition challenge has been made to the order dated 14.07.2009 (Annexure-18) and order dated 25.08.2009 (Annexure-19) passed by opposite party No. 2-Additional District Magistrate-Cum-Additional Registrar of Societies, Sundargarh. Under Annexure-18, opposite party No. 2 has restored the membership of all the living members who constituted the Rourkela Technical Educational Society (in short, "Society") in the year 1984-85 vide Registration No. SGD-388/1984-85. Under Annexure-19 opposite party No. 2 has approved the meeting of the Governing Body of the Society as per the proposal received from Sri Ramendra Kumar Pujari and Ors. but disapproved the resolution for removal of Sri P.K. Mohapatra from the primary membership of the Society on the ground that the allegations levelled against him require proper enquiry. The Petitioners also seek for a declaratory relief that opposite party No. 5-Sri R.K. Pujari, who is No. longer the President of the Society as well as opposite party No. 6-Sri Pitabash Mishra, an outsider, be permanently restrained from acting as President and Secretary of the Society respectively. Further relief sought for by the Petitioners is to declare Petitioner No. 1-Society constituted under resolution dated 9.6.2009 (Annexure-9) is valid and lawful. 2. The case of the Petitioners in a nutshell is that Petitioner No. 1 is a Society under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (in short, 'Act') vide Registration No. SGD-388/1984-85. The purpose of the Society is to establish and carry on the activities for advancement of learning and diffusing the knowledge of education on modern science and technology as well as to produce young technocrats for the benefit of the country and to provide different systems of technical education. Petitioner No. 1-Society framed a set of bye-laws (Annexure-1), which were duly approved by the members of the Governing Body of the Petitioner-Society, and the same were duly registered with the Registrar of Societies. Since 1984 the affairs of the Petitioner-Society were running under the Presidentship of Sri R.K. Pujari and Sri Pravat Mohapatra-Petitioner No. 2 as Secretary of the Society. In the year 1984, there were 12 members in the Petitioner-Society. Since 1984 the affairs of the Petitioner-Society were running under the Presidentship of Sri R.K. Pujari and Sri Pravat Mohapatra-Petitioner No. 2 as Secretary of the Society. In the year 1984, there were 12 members in the Petitioner-Society. According to the Petitioners, since 3 members expired and another member namely, P.N. Kapoor was not attending the meeting of the Society since 1990, they ceased to be the members of the Society and the remaining 8 members constituted both the General Body as well as Governing Body of the Society. On 10.5.1998 under Annexure-2, the Governing Body resolved that since Sri P.C. Panigrahi and P.K. Pujari were not attending the meeting of the Society they would cease to be the members of the Society. The Governing Body of the Society also unanimously resolved that another member, namely, Sri Sunil Mohapatra should not continue as a member of the Society since he was involved in irregular financial activity which was detrimental to the interest of the Society. Thus, the total number of the members came down to 5, who constituted the Governing Body. On 27.4.2001, the Governing Body of the Society resolved to amend the bye-laws of the Society. The said decision was confirmed by a resolution dated 13.05.2001 (Annexure-4). The said amended bye-law (Annexure-3) was submitted for approval of opposite party No. 2-Additional District Magistrate, Sundargarh as required under law. By that time two members, namely, Dr. K.K. Prajapati and Sri G.S. Agarawal were inducted as members of the Society. On 7.10.2001 a meeting of the Governing Body of the Petitioner No. 1-Society unanimously resolved under Annexure-5 to remove Sri Pitabas Mishra, who was a member of the Society, due to his activities which were not conducive to the interest of the Society. As the members of the Society came down for a smooth functioning of the Society, seven more members were inducted into membership of the Society. 3. Subsequently, a rift took place between the members of the Petitioner No. 1-Society and opp. party No. 5-R.K.Pujari with regard to payments made by the Bank to the contractor against construction work of a building of the Society. On 3.6.2009, the majority of the Governing Body members passed resolution (Annexure-6) removing R.K. Pujari from the post of President and same was communicated to Sri Pujari in the said meeting. It was also decided that Mr. party No. 5-R.K.Pujari with regard to payments made by the Bank to the contractor against construction work of a building of the Society. On 3.6.2009, the majority of the Governing Body members passed resolution (Annexure-6) removing R.K. Pujari from the post of President and same was communicated to Sri Pujari in the said meeting. It was also decided that Mr. Nabin Chakraborty, who is a regular member of the Petitioner-Society, is to act as pro-term President of Petitioner No. 1-Society till a regular President is elected. On receipt of the resolution dated 3.6.2009 (Annexure-6), opposite party No. 5-R.K. Pujari on the same day wrote a letter to opposite party No. 6-Sri Pitabas Mishra, an outsider to act as Secretary of the Petitioner-Society. Sri Pujari also wrote another letter under Annexure-8 to Pravat Mohapatra suspending him from the post of Secretary of the Petitioner-Society on some allegations and restraining him from making any transaction and to hand over all the charges to Sri Pitabasa Mishra. On 9.6.2009, a meeting of the Governing Body/General Body of the Petitioner-Society was held and the removal of R.K. Pujari was confirmed and it was unanimously decided to appoint Sri K.K. Prajapati as the new President. On the same date, i.e., on 9.6.2009, Petitioner No. 2 wrote a letter (Annexure-10) to opp. party No. 2 intimating him that in pursuance of the decision taken by the Governing Body of the Society on 3.6.2009 and in accordance with Clause-8 of the Bye-law of the Society, Sri R.K. Pujari has been removed from the office of the President of the Society for his unlawful activities and Dr. K.K. Prajapati has been unanimously elected as the President of the Society. On 10.6.2009, opp. party No. 5-Sri Pujari wrote a letter under Annexure-11 to opp. party No. 2 alleging that Petitioner No. 2 has put forged signature of the members and managed to pass the resolution which is illegal and requested opposite party No. 2 not to take any action on the resolution sent by Petitioner No. 2. On the same date, i.e., 10.6.2009, Petitioner No. 2 published a notice in Oriya daily "The Sambad" notifying therein that R.K. Pujari has been removed from the office of the President of Rourkela, TES with effect from 03.06.2009. On the same date, i.e., 10.6.2009, Petitioner No. 2 published a notice in Oriya daily "The Sambad" notifying therein that R.K. Pujari has been removed from the office of the President of Rourkela, TES with effect from 03.06.2009. In the same edition of the Oriya daily, Sri R.K.Pujari also published a notice notifying removal of Petitioner No. 2-Pravat Mahapatra and for handing over charge to Pitabas Mishra. 4. On 17.06.2009, opposite party No. 6-District Social Welfare Officer, Sundargarh wrote a letter to opposite party No. 3-Sub-Collector, Panposh enclosing there with a copy of the letter dated 9.6.2009 (Annexure-9) and a copy of the letter of R.K. Pujari dated 10.6.2009 (Annexure-11). Opposite party No. 1 -Collector requested opposite party No. 3-Sub-Collector to enquire into the matter and submit a report. 5. Thereafter, Petitioner No. 1-Society as well as Petitioner No. 2 filed a Civil Suit bearing O.S. No. 1 of 2009 in the Court of District Judge, Sundargarh praying for passing of a decree declaring that R.K. Pujari and Pitabasa Mishra are not entitled to claim themselves as the President and Chairman of Petitioner No. 1-Society and not to interfere with the management of Petitioner No. 1-Society; and also passing a decree that Sri Pitabas Mishra has No. right to act as Chairman or otherwise of Petitioner No. 1-Society or interfere with the management of the said Society. On 18.6.2009, learned District Judge, Sundargarh returned the plaint to the Plaintiff to present the same before the competent Court. Accordingly, the said plaint was presented before the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Panposh, which was registered as C.S. No. 14 of 2009. The said suit was withdrawn on 20.7.2009 to be filed before the learned Civil Judge (SD), Rourkela. 6. On 22.6.2009, Sri R.K. Pujari lodged an F.I.R. with the Inspector-in-Charge of Raghunathpalli Police Station against Sri Pravat Mohapatra, Petitioner No. 2 alleging misappropriation of public funds, manipulation of bills, vouchers, transfer of property of Petitioner No. 1-Society etc. The said F.I.R. has been registered as Raghunathpalli P.S. Case No. 92(10) of 2009 for alleged offences under Sections 420, 408 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner No. 2 filed an application u/s 438, Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail before this Court and it was allowed. The said F.I.R. has been registered as Raghunathpalli P.S. Case No. 92(10) of 2009 for alleged offences under Sections 420, 408 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner No. 2 filed an application u/s 438, Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail before this Court and it was allowed. On 27.6.2009, the lawyer of Petitioner No. 1-Society published a notice on behalf of Petitioner No. 1-Society in Oriya daily "The Sambad" stating the correct facts of the present dispute in order to put an end to speculation of the public regarding the functioning/administration of the Society. 7. On 1.7.2009, opposite party No. 3-Sub-Collector issued a notice (Annexure-16) to the Secretary, R.T.E.S. intimating him that an enquiry on the activities of the R.T.E. Society would be conducted and directed Petitioner No. 2 to attend the said enquiry in his Chamber on 3.7.2009 at 3 P.M. with documents mentioned in the said notice. On 3.7.2009, pursuant to direction of the Sub-Collector, Panposh vide notice dated 1.7.2009 the Petitioner submitted various documents before opposite party No. 3. On 6.7.2009, the Sub-Collector submitted his report to opposite party No. 4-District Social Welfare Officer, Sundargarh holding that removal of opposite party No. 5-Sri R.K. Pujari from the office of the President was contrary to bye-law, inasmuch as removal Sri Pujari from the office of the President was made by the Governing Body and not by the General Body. Thus, for the self same reason, election of Dr. K.K. Prajapati was treated to be irregular. After submission of the report by opposite party No. 3-Sub-Collector and on the basis of the note submitted by opp. party No. 4-D.S.W.O., opposite party No. 2-Addl. District Magistrate-cum-Addl. Registrar of Society, Sundargarh passed order dated 14.07.2009 under Annexure-18 restoring all the living members who constituted the Society in the year 1984-85. 8. Being aggrieved by the said order, Petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 150 of 2009 along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Rourkela, which was heard and disposed of on 6.8.2009 holding that the suit is not maintainable since as per the bye-law of the Society, the suit was to be filed by the Secretary of the Society. On 25.8.2009 opposite party No. 2 passed another order according approval to the meeting of the Governing Body held at the behest of the Society President-opposite party No. 5-R.K. Pujari and others. However, in the said order, opposite party No. 2 did not approve the removal of Sri Pravat Kumar Mohapatra-Petitioner No. 2 from the primary membership of Petitioner No. 1-Society as the allegation leveled against him requires proper inquiry. Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rourkela has held that the suit filed by the President of the Society is not entertainable. At that stage, Petitioner No. 1-Society filed a memo for non-prosecution of the suit and the same was accordingly dismissed. Hence, the present writ petition. 9. Mr. A.K. Parija, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the Petitioner submits that the entire proceeding beginning from the initiation of the inquiry till rendering of the order by opposite party No. 2 is without jurisdiction. These authorities have not been vested with any power in any law to inquire into the allegation made by the members of the Society and to annul the resolution adopted by the Society and restored a dead Governing Body of the year 1984-85, i.e., after a period of 25 years. Under the Act, opposite party No. 2-ADM-cum-Addl. Registrar of Societies, Sundargarh has not been vested with any power dealing with day-to-day affairs of the Society. Opposite party No. 2 is only authorized to take recourse to the minutes of the meeting held by the Society concerned. Therefore, the impugned order passed under Annexures-18 and 19 are totally without jurisdiction, abuse of process of law and thus, liable to be quashed. Opposite party No. 2 has committed a gross illegality by directing revival of the Governing Body of the year 1984-85 as by the date of passing the impugned order, many of the members, who constituted the Governing Body, have either expired or have been removed from the primary membership of the Society and thus ceased to be the members of the Society. The impugned order dated 25.8.2009 (Annexure-19) is ex facie illegal as approval to the so-called resolution passed by the Governing Body of the Society was not signed by the requisite members, as required to pass a resolution for removing a member from the Society. The impugned order dated 25.8.2009 (Annexure-19) is ex facie illegal as approval to the so-called resolution passed by the Governing Body of the Society was not signed by the requisite members, as required to pass a resolution for removing a member from the Society. Out of nine living members, six members must have to pass the resolution forming 2/3rd of the members present and voting in terms of bye-laws. Though these members are said to have signed the resolution, as one member-Prakash Panigrahi was out of country, it is quite improbable that he was present in the meeting and signed the resolution. Therefore, the impugned order dated 25.8.2009 passed under Annexure-19 is liable to be quashed. Opposite party No. 2 has simply reproduced the enquiry report submitted by opposite party No. 3-Sub-Collector. Opposite party No. 2, while passing the order under Annexure-19, should have taken into consideration as to who are the members, who constituted the so-called Governing Body of the Society and signed the resolution. Out of the six members, five members have already been removed from the membership of the Society by way of valid resolution made in terms of bye-laws of the Society. The impugned order under Annexures-18 and 19 have created situation where the future of the educational institution maintained by Petitioner No. 1-Society will be seriously affected. The financial status of the Society as well as the educational institution shall also be affected vitally. 10. Mr. Parija further submitted that opposite party No. 1-Collector has No. authority to request opposite party No. 3-Sub-Collector to enquire into the matter on the basis of letter dated 09.06.2009 (Annexure-9) and letter of R.K. Pujari dated 10.06.2009 (Annexure-11). Such action of the Collector is unknown to the Act. The order of approval dated 25.08.2009 passed by opposite party No. 2 is not sustainable and the same has been passed to give a colour of genuineness to the illegal and unauthorized meeting. Opposite party No. 2 is only authorized to record the minutes of the meeting held by the Society concerned. Therefore, the impugned orders passed under Annexures-18 and 19 are totally without jurisdiction, abuse of process of law and are liable to be quashed. 11. Mr. Opposite party No. 2 is only authorized to record the minutes of the meeting held by the Society concerned. Therefore, the impugned orders passed under Annexures-18 and 19 are totally without jurisdiction, abuse of process of law and are liable to be quashed. 11. Mr. R.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for opposite party No. 5 submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable as a civil suit bearing C.S. No. 150 of 2009 was dismissed without leave to file fresh suit. This Rule of Public Policy is applicable to writ petition filed under Article 226 and Special Leave Petition. In support of his contention, Mr. Rath relied on the decision of the Apex Court in M/s. Upadhyay and Co. Vs. State of U.P. and Others. Placing reliance upon a decision of the apex Court in the case of P.R. Murlidharan and Others Vs. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar and Others it was argued that jurisdiction of Civil Court is wide and plenary. A writ proceeding cannot be substituted for a Civil Suit. It is further submitted that since the Petitioner No. 2 himself invokes the jurisdiction of opposite party No. 2-A.D.M.-cum-Additional Registrar, he is estopped from approaching this Court contending that opposite party No. 2 has No. jurisdiction. Forum hunting is not permissible. What cannot be done directly that cannot be done indirectly and that amounts to abuse of process of law. Mr. Rath, in support of his contention, relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others, . 12. It is submitted that Petitioner No. 1-Society on earlier occasion filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 12182 of 2009 during pendency of the Civil Suit No. 150 of 2009 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rourkela. The said civil suit was filed by Petitioner No. 1-Society through Petitioner No. 4-Dr. K.K. Prajapati. The said writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh writ petition. No. liberty was granted by this Court to add parties to the said writ petition. Therefore, addition of further parties both either as Petitioners or opposite parties is not sustainable in law. Petitioner Nos. 3 to 9 being the strangers to the PetitionerNo. 1-Society, they have No. locus standi to file the present writ petition. No. liberty was granted by this Court to add parties to the said writ petition. Therefore, addition of further parties both either as Petitioners or opposite parties is not sustainable in law. Petitioner Nos. 3 to 9 being the strangers to the PetitionerNo. 1-Society, they have No. locus standi to file the present writ petition. Petitioner No. 2 was only allowed to file a fresh writ petition against the self same opposite parties in W.P.(C) No. 12182 of 2009. Therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. Moreover, the facts in W.P.(C) No. 12182 of 2009 are clearly different from the facts of the present writ petition. The Petitioner No. 2 has filed a civil suit before the District Judge, Sundargarh vide O.S. No. 14/1 of 2009 for adjudication of the dispute between Petitioner No. 2 and opposite party No. 5. But, when the learned District Judge, Sundargarh expressed his inability to exercise his jurisdiction over the matter, the Petitioner No. 2 withdrew the same and filed C.S. No. 14 of 2009 before the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Rourkela. Further, since injunction was not entertained by the learned trial court, the Petitioner No. 2 being the Plaintiff withdrew the same with a liberty to file it again before the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rourkela, but the Petitioner No. 2 has not filed any suit thereafter. The earlier writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 12182 of 2009 and the present writ petition have been filed suppressing the relevant facts when C.S. No. 14 of 2009 was pending before the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Rourkela. The present Petitioner Nos. 2 to 9 by a resolution authorized Dr. K.K. Prajapati, Petitioner No. 4 herein, who impersonating himself as the President of the Petitioner No. 1-Society filed Civil Suit No. 150 of 2009 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rourkela on behalf of all the present Petitioners. When the prayer for injunction was rejected, the Plaintiff in the said suit filed an application to withdraw the same with a liberty to file a fresh suit. The lower Court refused to grant any liberty and dismissed the said suit as withdrawn. Since C.S. No. 150 of 2009 was filed on behalf of the Petitioner-Society as Plaintiff, the present writ petition is hit by the principle of res judicata. The lower Court refused to grant any liberty and dismissed the said suit as withdrawn. Since C.S. No. 150 of 2009 was filed on behalf of the Petitioner-Society as Plaintiff, the present writ petition is hit by the principle of res judicata. Sri Gurupada Nanda, representing the Petitioner No. 1-Society filed C.S. No. 158 of 2009 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rourkela suppressing the true and correct facts. After passing of the interim order dated 16.09.2009, Sri Gurupada Nanda has withdrawn the suit unconditionally on 25.10.2009. The present Petitioner No. 2 in order to harass the legally constituted body of the Petitioner No. 1-Society on several times in various manner, filed fictitious suits and petitions for personal illegal gain. 13. According to Mr. Rath, the present petition is hit by non-joinder of necessary party. Petitioner Nos. 3 to 9 are not the members of Petitioner No. 1-Society, as they were never inducted or admitted as members of the Society by any resolution nor they have paid any subscription or fees as required by law. Opposite party Nos. 1, 3 and 4 being the Government functionaries, have No. role to play under the Act and also No. prayer is made against them. Opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 being the sub-ordinate officers under opposite party No. 2, only acted as per his direction so as to find out the truth. So, by No. stretch of imagination, opposite party Nos. 1, 3 and 4 can be added as proper parties to the writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is badly hit by the principle of mis-joinder of parties. The Petitioners have filed this writ petition deliberately suppressing the material facts. Petitioner No. 2 is not the Secretary of Petitioner No. 1-Society, as claimed. As per Annexure-19 of the writ petition, Petitioner No. 2 ceased to be Secretary of Petitioner No. 1-Society and hence has No. right whatsoever to file the present writ petition. The aggrieved parties instead of filing the present petition ought to have approached the controlling authority i.e., Registrar of Societies for remedy of their grievance, if any. When an alternative and statutory remedy is available, the present writ petition is not maintainable. The order impugned has already been given effect to and the living members, who constituted the Petitioner No. 1-Society in the year 1984-85, have been restored. When an alternative and statutory remedy is available, the present writ petition is not maintainable. The order impugned has already been given effect to and the living members, who constituted the Petitioner No. 1-Society in the year 1984-85, have been restored. Under the circumstances, the living members of the original body are necessary parties and in absence of them, the writ petition is not maintainable. 14. If is further argued by Mr. Rath that there is distinction between the Governing Body and the General Body. The averments made in the writ petition are denied. There was No. valid meeting either on 03.06.2009 or on 09.06.2009 in presence of valid members of the Society. The impugned order dated 14.07.2009 (Annexure-18) was passed by opposite party No. 2 after due enquiry. In the meeting dated 23.07.2009, only three members were present; they are Sri Gurupada Nanda, Sri Kishore Patel and the present Petitioner No. 2. The Societies Registration Act is a Central Act and the State of Orissa adopted the same without framing Rules thereof. Therefore, it is pertinent to follow the Rules and Procedures adopted by the other States in this regard. As per the Rules framed under the Act and promulgated by other States, the Registrar of Societies or the Additional Registrar of the Societies may, in their discretion, institute such inquires or investigations in respect of any matter as may, in his opinion, be necessary for the proper working of the Society and administration of the Act on receipt of a complaint and counter complaint in the form of resolution from both the sides. Opposite party No. 2 has rightly ordered for an inquiry, summoned all the members and then came to know about living and dead members of the Society. 15. Mr. Pati, learned Counsel appearing for opposite party No. 6 has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition. It is submitted that opposite party No. 6-Pitabash Mishra by virtue of resolution dated 23.07.2009 (Annexure-E/5) passed by the General Body of the Society has become Secretary. Therefore, Petitioner No. 2-Pravat Kumar Mohapatra was No. more the Secretary of the Society w.e.f. 23.07.2009. Hence, the writ petition filed by him is not maintainable. No. resolution was passed by the Society to file the present writ petition and the Society is in No. way prejudiced by the impugned orders passed under Annexures-18 and 19. Therefore, Petitioner No. 2-Pravat Kumar Mohapatra was No. more the Secretary of the Society w.e.f. 23.07.2009. Hence, the writ petition filed by him is not maintainable. No. resolution was passed by the Society to file the present writ petition and the Society is in No. way prejudiced by the impugned orders passed under Annexures-18 and 19. Opposite party No. 2 has conducted inquiry about the activities of the Society and ultimately found that due process of law has not been followed for expulsion of members inasmuch as expulsion of members has been made without approval of General Body having 2/3rd majority. Taking into consideration the above facts, opposite party No. 2 restored the membership of all the living members, who had constituted the Society in the year 1984-85. The Petitioner No. 2 is in No. way prejudiced because he is continuing as one of the living members of Petitioner-Society. Opposite party No. 2 after verifying the fact that the list submitted by opposite party No. 5-R.K. Pujari bears the signature of six members out of nine living members, which constituted 2/3rd majority of the members of the Society, accepted the proposal for functioning of the Governing Body of the Society. Sri K.K. Prajapati, Sri Navin Chakravarty and Petitioner Nos. 3 to 9 are not members of the Society. No. agenda was available for induction of any member or any resolution has been passed inducting Sri K.K. Prajapati, Navin Chakravarty and Petitioner Nos. 3 to 9 as members of the Society. The so-called induction is contrary to Clause 3 (ii)(b) of the amended bye-law of the Society. A reading of resolution dated 02.02.2005 (Annexure-23) reveals that Sri Prajapati is a co-opt member. Petitioner Nos. 3 to 9 don't have the eligibility conditions, as prescribed under Clause 3(ii)(b) of the amended bye-laws, to become the members of the Society. They are strangers and not the members of the Society. The Governing Body and the General Body are two sets of functionaries and both are distinct. Sections 5, 9, 12, 13 and 16 of the Act provide about the Governing Body and General Body. The Governing Body is defined u/s 6 of the Act. Clause 5 of the amended bye-law of the Society speaks about General Body. The amended bye-law assigns duties and power to the Governing Body and General Body. Sections 5, 9, 12, 13 and 16 of the Act provide about the Governing Body and General Body. The Governing Body is defined u/s 6 of the Act. Clause 5 of the amended bye-law of the Society speaks about General Body. The amended bye-law assigns duties and power to the Governing Body and General Body. Under Clause 5 of the amended bye-laws, the General Body of the Society is the supreme authority; the General Body is only competent to pass the resolution for induction and expulsion of members subject to conditions imposed in it. Therefore, the decision taken by the Governing Body for induction and expulsion of members contravening the mandate of bye-law is a nullity in the eye of law. Hence, opposite party No. 2 has rightly passed the order dated 14.07.2009 and restored the membership of the living members of the Society. P.N. Kapoor, P.K. Pujari and P.C. Panigrahi continued to be the members of the Society. In the case of P.K. Kapoor, No. resolution has been passed about his removal from the Society. On the contrary, as per Clause 3(ii) (a) of the amended bye-law made on 01.06.2001 (Annexure-2), all the members of the Society, since the date of its registration till that date, shall continue to be the members of the Society. A reading of the resolution dated 10.05.1998 reveals that decision has been taken by the Governing Body to allow R.K. Pujari and P.C. Panigrahi to attend the future meeting. Sri P.K. Pujari has attended the meetings of the Society held on 08.04.2001, 22.04.2001, 27.04.2001 and 03.05.2001 which is evident from Annexure-23 series annexed to the rejoinder affidavit. Sri S.K. Mahapatra is not a member of the Society. Sri Pitabash Mishra has not been removed from the Society. Annexure-5 of the writ petition reveals that he has resigned from the Chairmanship of RTES. 16. It is further argued that opposite party No. 2 is the registering authority under the Act having ancillary and incidental power to make inquiry about the membership of the Society in terms of Section 4 of the Act. It is obligatory on the part of the Society to submit report to opposite party No. 2 in terms of Section 4A and intimate about the changes. Opposite party No. 2 is vested with the power to make inquiry about the membership and activities of the Society. It is obligatory on the part of the Society to submit report to opposite party No. 2 in terms of Section 4A and intimate about the changes. Opposite party No. 2 is vested with the power to make inquiry about the membership and activities of the Society. In support of its contention, opposite party No. 6 relies on the decisions of the apex Court in the cases of (i) Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Others (ii) I.T.O. v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi AIR 1969 SC 430 , (iii) Bidi, Bidi Leaves' and Tobacco Merchants Association Vs. The State of Bombay, and (iv) Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. National Tobacco Company Ltd. AIR 1972 SC 2536. 17. It is further argued that Petitioner No. 2 submitted a list to opposite party No. 2 in compliance of the order dated 14.07.2009 passed by him for formation of the Governing Body. Petitioner No. 2 had appeared before opposite party No. 3 in pursuance of notice dated 01.07.2009 and produced the records for formation of the Governing Body. Thus, Petitioner No. 2 submitted to the jurisdiction of opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The meeting of the General Body of the Society held on 23.07.2009 was attended by six founder members of the Society out of nine living members which constituted 2/3rd majority. On the basis of allegation made by the members of the Society, opposite party No. 2 directed the subordinate officers to make an inquiry. It was found that due procedure of law has not been followed in expelling and/or inducting the members. Section 13 of the Act would attract for dissolution of the Society. In this case, there is No. question of dissolution. In concluding his argument, Mr. Pati prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 18. Mr. R.K. Mohapatra, learned Government Advocate submitted that as disputed question of facts are involved, the writ petition is not maintainable. Mr. Mohapatra, supporting the orders impugned under Annexures-18 and 19, submitted that there is No. infirmity or illegality in the said orders. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 19. In the rejoinder affidavit the Petitioner stated that No. suit, filed by the Petitioner No. 1-Society or the Petitioner No. 2 is pending adjudication in any Court of law. Mohapatra, supporting the orders impugned under Annexures-18 and 19, submitted that there is No. infirmity or illegality in the said orders. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 19. In the rejoinder affidavit the Petitioner stated that No. suit, filed by the Petitioner No. 1-Society or the Petitioner No. 2 is pending adjudication in any Court of law. Therefore, the contention of opposite party No. 5 that the suits are pending for disposal is not at all correct. Further, it was submitted that though the suits were filed by the Petitioner No. 1-Society but the same were never decided/disposed of on merit and No. point or issue was ever decided by any Civil Court. Therefore, the principle of res judicata will not be attracted as has been averred by the present opposite parties. The Act neither empowers the Additional District Magistrate-cum-Additional Registrar of Societies, Sundargarh-opposite party No. 2 nor any other authority to pass any order with regard to the affairs of the Society nor there is any provision to go in appeal challenging the order passed by the registering authority. Therefore, the plea of alternative remedy available to the Petitioners, as raised by opposite party No. 5, is not correct. It is the settled law that a law made by legislature of a particular State is applicable to that State only. The law enacted by a State through amendment cannot automatically be made applicable to another State. The Government of Orissa has not amended any provision of the Act in order to bestow power on the registering authority to pass orders in respect of the affairs of the registered Society. The personal allegation raised against the Petitioners in the counter is not the subject matter of the writ petition. Therefore, the same should be discarded. Petitioner No. 2 is still continuing as Secretary of the Society and he has been discharging his functions in terms of the bye-law of the Society. It is only Section 13 of the Act, which provides for dissolution of Societies and adjustment of their affairs. Under said Section, any dispute, arising among the Governing Body or the members of the Society for adjustment of its affairs, shall be referred to the Principal Court of original civil jurisdiction of the district in which chief building of the Society is situated for adjudication. Under said Section, any dispute, arising among the Governing Body or the members of the Society for adjustment of its affairs, shall be referred to the Principal Court of original civil jurisdiction of the district in which chief building of the Society is situated for adjudication. In the case at hand, the District Judge, Sundargarh is empowered to adjudicate the dispute between the two groups of office bearers. The registering authority should have referred the dispute to the District Judge, Sundergarh for adjudication instead of adjudicating the dispute himself and passing impugned orders, which is not within his jurisdiction and thus liable to be quashed. 20. On the rival contentions urged on behalf of the parties, the questions that fall for consideration by this Court are as under: (i) Whether the present writ petition is maintainable? (ii) Whether the Additional District Magistrate-cum-Additional Registrar of Societies, Sundargarh-opposite party No. 2 has jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders under Annexures-18 and 19? (iii) Whether various findings of opposite party No. 2 are legally sustainable? (iv) What order? 21. The question No. (i) relates to maintainability of the writ petition. Mr. R.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel submits that the Petitioners have approached the Civil Courts by filing Civil Suit seeking similar prayer as prayed for in the present writ petition and withdrew the same without leave to file fresh suit. Therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable. In support of his contention, Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate appearing for O.P. No. 5 relied upon the decision of the apex Court in M/s. Upadhyay and Co. Vs. State of U.P. and Others wherein the apex Court held that the ban under Order 23 Rule 1(3), CPC to file a fresh suit in case of withdrawal of suit without seeking permission to file a fresh suit is based on Rule of public policy. This Rule of public policy is applicable to writ petitions filed under Article 226 and Special Leave Petitions filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, when the party had withdrawn the SLP filed to challenge order of the High Court in Writ Petition without seeking permission to file fresh SLP, he cannot file another SLP challenging the same order again. Relying on the decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Pillarisetti Gotilingam Vs. Therefore, when the party had withdrawn the SLP filed to challenge order of the High Court in Writ Petition without seeking permission to file fresh SLP, he cannot file another SLP challenging the same order again. Relying on the decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Pillarisetti Gotilingam Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh it is submitted by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the question of application of Order 23 shall arise in relation to a properly instituted suit. Relying on the decision of the apex Court in K.D.Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited and Ors. (supra), it was argued on behalf of opposite party No. 5 that the Petitioner has tried to abuse the judicial process. In that case, it is further held that as per the settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play "hide and seek" or to "pick and choose" the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of writ courts and exercise would become impossible. The Petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought. This is because "the court knows law but not facts". An applicant who does not come with candid facts and "clean breast" cannot hold a writ of the court with "soiled hands". Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has No. place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the court, the court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the court, the court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the court does not reject the petition on that ground, the court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt of court for abusing the process of the court. 22. Reliance was also placed on Shri Mahabir Prasad Jain Vs. Shri Ganga Singh wherein the apex Court held that the way in which the Respondent has been instituting different proceedings in different fora within a short time making inconsistent allegations show that the Respondent has been abusing the process of Court and not come to Court with clean hands. He is not entitled to get any equitable relief under the Specific Relief Act. 23. In P.R. Murlidharan and Others Vs. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar and Others the apex Court held that jurisdiction of Civil Court is wide and plenary. A writ proceeding cannot be a substitute for civil suit. 24. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the jurisdiction of Addl. District Magistrate-cum-Addl. Registrar of Societies, Sundargarh (O.P. No. 2) in passing the impugned orders under Annexures-18 and 19. Law is well settled that when any order is without jurisdiction, the party affected by such order can challenge the same invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of writ Court. The principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence or even res judicata which are procedural in nature would have No. application since order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity. The Apex Court in the case of Hasham Abbas Sayyad Vs. Usman Abbas Sayyad and Others held that the core question is as to whether an order passed by a person lacking inherent jurisdiction would be a nullity. It will be so. The principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence or even res-judicata which are procedural in nature would have No. application in a case where an order has been passed by the tribunal/court which has No. authority in that behalf. It will be so. The principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence or even res-judicata which are procedural in nature would have No. application in a case where an order has been passed by the tribunal/court which has No. authority in that behalf. Any order passed by a Court without jurisdiction would be coram non judice, being a nullity, the same ordinarily should not be given effect to. 25. In the instant case, since the validity/legality of the impugned orders are challenged on the ground that the authority, i.e., opposite party No. 2-Additional District Magistrate-Cum-Additional Registrar of Societies, Sundargarh, who passed the impugned order, has No. jurisdiction to pass such orders. In view of the above, we are inclined to hold that the writ petition is maintainable. 26. Question No. (ii) is whether the Addl. District Magistrate-cum-Addition Registrar of Societies, Sundargarh, Rourkela (O.P. No. 2) has jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders under Annexures-18 and 19. Under Annexure-18, O.P. No. 2 has examined the facts, allegations and counter allegations of the parties and come to the conclusion that due procedure of law provided under the Act, has not been followed for expulsion of members and therefore, directed restoration of membership of all the living members who constituted the Society in the year 1984-85. Under Annexure-19, opp. party No. 2 has also adjudicated the dispute of the rival parties and approved that the meeting of Governing Body of R.T.E.S., Rourkela as per the proposal received from Sri R.K.Pujari and Ors. and disapproved the resolution for removal of Pravat Kumar Mohapatra from primary membership of the Society on the ground that the allegation leveled against him requires proper enquiry. According to Mr. A.K.Parija, learned Senior Advocate, Opp. Party No. 2 has No. jurisdiction/authority to adjudicate the disputes of the rival parties of a registered Society and also enquire about the membership and activities of the Society. In support of his contention, he relied upon decision of this Court in Pravat Kumar Manadhata v. Addl. District Magistrate (2006) Supp.II OLR 529. 27. On the contrary, Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate appearing for opposite party No. 5 argued that the Petitioner having participated in the proceeding before the O.P. No. 2 is estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of the said authority. This contention of Mr. District Magistrate (2006) Supp.II OLR 529. 27. On the contrary, Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate appearing for opposite party No. 5 argued that the Petitioner having participated in the proceeding before the O.P. No. 2 is estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of the said authority. This contention of Mr. Rath is not sustainable in law since law is well settled that conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and it can neither be conferred with the consent of the parties nor by a superior Court. If any authority passes order having No. jurisdiction over the matter it would amount to nullity as the matter go to the root of the cause. The order becomes irrelevant and unenforceable/in-executable once a forum is found to have No. jurisdiction. No. authority can derive jurisdiction apart from the statute. Jurisdiction is always conferred by a statute. [Vide The United Commercial Bank Ltd. Vs. Their Workmen, ; Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur Vs. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. C-7, Panki Industrial Area, Kanpur, ] 28. The question as regards the jurisdiction of the Additional District Magistrate-cum-Additional Registrar of Societies in adjudicating the disputes between the parties and vis-?-vis causing enquiry of the membership and activities of the Societies was called for consideration of this Court in Pravat Kumar Manadhata (supra). In that case, this Court held that in absence of any pari meteria provision brought into the Act by amendment, by the State of Orissa, the Additional District Magistrate has No. authority to enter into the dispute raised before him with regard to allegations made against the Petitioners by opposite parties and in that view of the matter the impugned order dated 28.08.2004 cannot stand to scrutiny of law and the same is liable to be quashed. In the said case, it is also held that the Additional Magistrate, Khurda had No. such authority under law to give independent finding on disputed questions and finally this Court directed that all the observations made by the Additional District Magistrate in the impugned order dated 20.08.2004 with regard to the allegations made against the Petitioner and his findings on such observation would stand expunged from the impugned order. 29. In view of the above, we hold that O.P. No. 2-Additional District Magistrate-cum-Additional Registrar of Societies, Sundargarh has No. jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders under Annexures-18 and 19. 30. 29. In view of the above, we hold that O.P. No. 2-Additional District Magistrate-cum-Additional Registrar of Societies, Sundargarh has No. jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders under Annexures-18 and 19. 30. For the reasons stated above, we are not inclined to accept the submission of opposite parties that since in other States, the Additional Registrar of Societies has power to adjudicate the disputes of the Society and to look into day-to-day activities of the Society, in the present case even in absence of any such power the O.P. No. 2-Additional District Magistrate-cum-Additional Registrar of Societies, Sundargarh has power to adjudicate the disputes of the Society and therefore, is competent to pass order under Annexures-18 and 19. For the same reasons, the stand taken by opposite party No. 6 that he has ancillary and incidental powers to inquire about the membership of the Society in terms of Section 4 of the Act is not sustainable in law. The various decisions of the apex Court relied on by opposite party No. 6 has No. application to the present case as the facts of the those cases are different from the case at hand and in those cases the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 with reference to power of the Additional District Magistrate-cum-Additional Registrar of Societies, Sundargarh has not been examined. 31. So far as question No. (iii) is concerned, since we have held that the O.P. No. 2-Additional District Magistrate-cum-Additional Registrar of Societies, Sundargarh has No. jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders under Annexures-18 and 19 there is No. need to adjudicate question (iii) as the same would be mere academic in nature. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and accordingly, we quash Annexures-18 and 19. No order as to costs. V. Gopala Gowda, C.J. 32. I agree. Final Result : Allowed