JUDGMENT : Sahidulah Munshi, J. The present Writ Petition has been filed by Balurghat Law College Society, registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961, containing Registration No. S/LE/2694 of 2000-01, represented through its secretary and another. The writ petitioners said to be aggrieved and dissatisfied with the unauthorized act of an Administrator who was appointed by this Court by an Order dated 17th October, 2012, passed in W.P. No. 20654(W) of 2012. The said Writ Petition was also filed by the present petitioner, Balurghat Law College Society, containing Registration No. S/LE/2694/2000-01. The said Writ Petition arose concerning a dispute over legitimacy of the 'governing body' which was then functioning at the Balurghat Law College affiliated to Gourbanga University. Considering the submission made on behalf of the University that life of a governing body of the College being 4 years as per University statute, fresh election was required to be held for constitution of a governing body afresh. Considering the fact that the governing body which was constituted in the year 2006 outlived its statutory tenure and since there was no law permitting to extend the term of the tenure of the said body, this Court directed the Vice-Chancellor of the University to appoint an Administrator to the Balurghat Law College. The Administrator was also directed to take immediate steps for reconstitution of the governing body following the applicable rules of the University as well as the rules of the society who have formed the college. Fresh election to the governing body was directed to be held within a period of 6 months from the date of communication of the said Order. The Administrator was further directed to ensure that the college runs properly and no prejudice is caused to any of the students and further that there was proper disbursement of salary and emoluments to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the college. The Administrator was also directed to take appropriate steps for day-to-day affairs of the college. It is alleged that although in compliance of the said Order an Administrator had been appointed by the University but the Administrator has not been able to conduct the election as directed by this Court. The learned Advocates appearing for the University and the Administrator have raised preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the Writ Petition on two grounds, namely, 1. The learned Advocates appearing for the University and the Administrator have raised preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the Writ Petition on two grounds, namely, 1. That from the Registration Certificate issued by the concerned authority, it appears that the Registration No. refers to Balurghat Law College but not Balurghat Law College Society and 2. According to the Society Registration Act, only the Secretary or President of the Society is empowered to file or defend a suit or proceeding. 2. On behalf of Respondent No. 5, the Administrator, it was submitted that the Writ Petition is not maintainable almost on the identical grounds as raised by the University. In support of the submission that the Writ Petition is not maintainable, both the University and the Administrator filed their respective written notes of arguments which contains not only the question of maintainability but also the submission on merit of the Writ Petition. 3. I have perused the short-notes filed on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, namely, the University Authorities and it has been pointed out that the name of the petitioner as mentioned in the earlier Writ Petition was described as Balurghat Law College. The particulars as mentioned in the earlier Writ Petition of the petitioners are as follows: 1. Balurghat Law College, a society registered under Society Registration Act vide No. S/LE/2694/2000-01 represented by its Secretary, Post Office Balurghat, district - Dakshin Dinajpur. 2. Bidyut Kumar Roy, son of Shri Shyamal Kumar Roy presently residing at North Chakbhabani Post Office & Police Station Balurghat, District - Dakshin Dinajpur ...Petitioners. In the present Writ Petition, the written particulars of writ petitioners have been mentioned as follows: 1. Balurghat Law College Society, registered under the West Bengal Society Act, 1961 being Registration No. S/LE/2694 of 2000-01 represented its Secretary, Post Office Balurghat and District- Dakshin Dinajpur, PIN - 733101. 2. Shri Bidyut Kumar Roy, son of Shri Shyamal Kumar Roy, presently residing at North Chakbhabani, Post Office & Police Station Balurghat, District - Dakshin Dinajpur, PIN - 733101. My attention has also been drawn to the 'letter head' of the college being Annexure P-6 which shows that the said 'letter head' is printed in the name of Balurghat Law College Society and it appears that the same has been registered under the same Registration No., as that of Balurghat Law College for the same year. 4. My attention has also been drawn to the 'letter head' of the college being Annexure P-6 which shows that the said 'letter head' is printed in the name of Balurghat Law College Society and it appears that the same has been registered under the same Registration No., as that of Balurghat Law College for the same year. 4. From a comparison of the cause title of the earlier Writ Petition being W.P. No. 20654(W) of 2012 and the present Writ Petition being W.P. No. 37441(W) of 2013, it appears that in the earlier Writ Petition, 'comma' was put before the Society and 'comma' has been put in the present petition after the Society. Since the Registration No. appears to be same and the year of registration also appears to be same, I hold that the Institution which filed the earlier Writ Petition is the same and one which has filed the present Writ Petition. The Respondent Nos. 2,3 and 5 have also raised an issue relating to maintainability contending, inter alia, that according to the provisions of Section 19 of the Societies Registration Act, every society may sue or may be sued in the name of the President, the Secretary, or any Office Bearer authorised by the governing body. In support of such contention, the learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent No. 5 has relied on a judgment of this Hon'ble Court passed in the case of Tenants' Association v. Collector of Howrah, reported in, 1977 (2) CLJ 338 . In the said judgment it was held that since the appellant writ petitioner society filed the Writ Petition in the name of the society itself, the Writ Petition was held not to be maintainable. From the cause title of the said decision, it appears that the association was the only petitioner-appellant. Secretary or President did not join the writ petition. After going through the said decision, it appears to me, that is, case of Tenants' Association v. Collector of Howrah (supra) is factually different from the case at hand. 5. In the present case, the 1st petitioner is the society. It has been mentioned that the same is represented by its Secretary. Therefore, the ratio decided in the said case cannot be made applicable to the present case. Since the Petitioner No. 1 approaches the Court through its Secretary, the Writ Petition cannot be thrown out. 5. In the present case, the 1st petitioner is the society. It has been mentioned that the same is represented by its Secretary. Therefore, the ratio decided in the said case cannot be made applicable to the present case. Since the Petitioner No. 1 approaches the Court through its Secretary, the Writ Petition cannot be thrown out. So far the objection raised by the respondents above named that Petitioner No. 2 did not describe him as a Secretary of the Society, the Writ Petition should be thrown on this ground alone. But from the averment made in paragraph 1 of the Writ Petition, it appears that the Petitioner No. 1 has been stated to be the Society and Petitioner No. 2 as the Secretary of the said Society. The Petitioner No. 2 is Shri Bidyut Kumar Roy who has affirmed the affidavit. Having considered the materials disclosed in the Writ Petition and the decisions cited by the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the Writ Petition is very much maintainable. It is the settled law that the Court should not be hyper technical in deciding a case rather than to decide it on merit. 6. In the instant case, the writ petitioner made a prayer in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith, set aside, cancel and/or rescind the Order of extension of the appointment of Administrator, namely Dr. Rathin Bandopadhyay, issued by the Registrar, University of Gourbanga vide Memo No. 830(2) dated 13th August, 2013. In support of such prayer, the writ petitioner has submitted that the petitioner No. 1 was formed for the purpose of setting up a Law College for the poor students including students from lower income group who desire to study law. The State of West Bengal executed a deed of lease with the said Society for a period of 30 years. Such lease was executed on 6th of September, 2006 and the quantum of property mentioned is about 4.17 acres. It is stated in the Writ Petition that Balurghat Law College was initially affiliated to the University of 'North Bengal' in the year 2001. From the year 2007, the said college was brought under the umbrella of University of 'Gourbanga'. Such lease was executed on 6th of September, 2006 and the quantum of property mentioned is about 4.17 acres. It is stated in the Writ Petition that Balurghat Law College was initially affiliated to the University of 'North Bengal' in the year 2001. From the year 2007, the said college was brought under the umbrella of University of 'Gourbanga'. It was inspected by the concerned authorities of the University of Gourbanga in the year 2009 and after being satisfied, the said University was extended the affiliation till 2009-10 which was further extended for the session 2010-11. It is stated that the functioning of the college has also been approved by the Bar Council of India and the Government of West Bengal as well. The governing body of the said society was reconstituted. 7. Concerning the legitimacy of the governing body which was functioning at the relevant point of time, a Writ Petition being W.P. No. 20654(W) of 2012 was filed by the petitioner herein. In the said Writ Petition, an Order was passed by this Court on 17th October, 2012 and there was a direction upon the Vice-Chancellor of the University to appoint an Administrator to the Balurghat Law College. There was a direction also upon the Administrator to take immediate steps for reconstitution of the governing body following the applicable rules of the University. In the said Order it was directed that the election to the governing body should be held within a period of 6 months from the date of communication of the said Order. 8. In pursuance of the aforesaid Order passed on 17th October, 2012, the Vice-Chancellor of University of Gourbanga issued a memo being No. 229/UGB/VC-12 dated 7th November, 2012 addressing the same to the teacher-in-charge, Balurghat Law College. By the said letter, one Dr. Rathin Bandopadhyay, Department of Law, North Bengal University, was appointed to do the needful in terms of the Order dated 17th October, 2012, passed by this Court. Copy of the judgment was also attached with the said letter. It is undisputed that Dr. Rathin Bandopadhyay was appointed as the Administrator and is contesting the present writ application. Dispute arose when Memo No. 830(2)/UGB/R-13 dated 13.8.2013 was issued by the University thereby extending the term of the Administrator for a further period of 6 months with immediate effect. Copy of the judgment was also attached with the said letter. It is undisputed that Dr. Rathin Bandopadhyay was appointed as the Administrator and is contesting the present writ application. Dispute arose when Memo No. 830(2)/UGB/R-13 dated 13.8.2013 was issued by the University thereby extending the term of the Administrator for a further period of 6 months with immediate effect. The writ petitioners contend that despite there being a clear direction of this Hon'ble Court and although, by virtue of the said Order, the Administrator was appointed and who was bound to hold the election to the governing body, the same has not only been not done, but his term has been further extended without leave of this Court. The writ petitioner contended further that he can maintain a separate Writ Petition in order to get the earlier Order implemented without going for a proceeding in contempt of Court. And in support thereof, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner cites a decision in the case of Bibekananda Mondal v. State of West Bengal, reported in, 2003 (1) Calcutta High Court Notes 154. The said judgment was delivered by a Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court relying upon a Division Bench judgment of Patna High Court in the case of Nawal Kishore Prasad Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in, AIR 1983 Pat 8 . In the said referred judgment of Patna High Court, it was, inter alia, held that "without initiating a proceeding for contempt, this Court can quash any Order or proceeding done in disregard of such Orders which may also tantamount to contempt." Relying on such decision, Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court was pleased to allow the Writ Petition holding, inter alia, that the second writ application is maintainable for implementation of an earlier Order of the Writ Court. 9. In order to controvert the above submission made on behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, University Authority, that they have every regard for the solemn Order passed by this Court but, the learned Advocate appearing for the said respondents sought to justify as to why the Order could not be implemented in time and as to why the Order, appointing Respondent No. 5 as an Administrator for the aforesaid purpose, was required to be extended for a further period. The learned Advocate for the University has submitted that the Bar Council of India has recognised the Balurghat Law College (hereinafter to be called the said Law College) under the Gourbanga University (hereinafter to be called the said University). He submits that the said law college was under North Bengal University prior to 2008 but, thereafter, the same came under the Gourbanga University with the enactment of Gourbanga University Act, 2007, but, inasmuch as there is no statute, rules and regulations, a resolution was taken by the governing body of Gourbanga University to follow the statute, rules and regulations of North Bengal University. It is contended that the Administrator appointed by Gourbanga University could not do the job in time for which he was so appointed. It is the further contention that the Administrator requires necessary statute for conducting the election to the governing body but, the University, in order to avoid any controversy and keeping in view the interest of the students, kept the matter in abeyance since statute of Gourbanga University was not framed at the relevant point of time and that it was under process. It has been stated by the University that in the interest of the University itself and in the interest of the college, the Vice-Chancellor, in exercise of the power conferred under Statute 2(d) of the statutes relating to the governing bodies of the colleges of University of North Bengal, the University can extend the tenure of the Administrator for further period and such extension can even be extended but not more than 18 months in total. It is contended that such provision of the said statute was not brought before this Court earlier. It is further contended on behalf of the University that statute of Gourbanga University has already got approval from the Governmental authority and it is expected that the said statute would be given effect after due compliance of certain formalities and, thereafter, it would be handed over to the Administration for conducting fresh election as per the statutes so that no confusion might arise. 10. On behalf of the University, it has been further contended that Government of West Bengal issued G.O. No. 560-Edn (CS/4A-5/99 P) dated Kolkata the 1st July, 2011 for taking some actions, namely, that (i) University under whose purview the college falls may be approached for declaring the college as the University College. 10. On behalf of the University, it has been further contended that Government of West Bengal issued G.O. No. 560-Edn (CS/4A-5/99 P) dated Kolkata the 1st July, 2011 for taking some actions, namely, that (i) University under whose purview the college falls may be approached for declaring the college as the University College. (ii) The West Bengal State Council of Higher Secondary Education may be approached for bringing the college under pay packet scheme of the Government. 11. It is submitted that all are under process and after the approval, the college can run smoothly. It has been admitted that the college is getting financial aid from the Government. 12. It has been further contended by the University that Gourbanga University is guided by the North Bengal University statute as has been pointed out in paragraph 7 of the written notes of argument and that there is no dispute on such aspect but, it is stated that Gourbanga University statute will come into force very soon and after it is so effected, it will be handed over to the Administrator for compliance of the Order of the Hon'ble Court. 13. Similar stand, as taken by the University authorities, has also been taken by the Respondent No. 5. Mr. Amalesh Roy, appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 5, submits that he has no mala fide to conduct the election in terms of the Order passed earlier by this Court. In justifying his conduct for non-compliance of the Order passed by this Court by not holding the election of the governing body of Balurghat Law College it has been contended that this Hon'ble Court directed the Administrator to take immediate steps for reconstitution of the governing body following the applicable rules of the University as well as the rules of society who have formed the college. It is submitted that Balurghat Law College was initially affiliated to University of North Bengal and after establishment of Gourbanga University by enactment of Gourbanga University Act, 2007 with effect from 19th February, 2008, Balurghat Law College is now affiliated to Gourbanga University. It is submitted that University of North Bengal has got its statutes relating to governing body of colleges. It has been filed with the short-notes of argument. It is submitted that University of North Bengal has got its statutes relating to governing body of colleges. It has been filed with the short-notes of argument. He relied upon statute 8 of the said statute of North Bengal University which provides as follows: Statute 8 Special provision regarding Governing Bodies of certain colleges: (1)(a) In the case of a college established and administered by any Trust or Registered Society or under a scheme laid down by a competent Court and already granted affiliation on that stipulation, the Governing Body shall be constituted in accordance with the terms of the memorandum and articles of association or the Deed of Trust, as the case may be Provided that the Governing Body of such a college shall also include the members as envisaged in clauses (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) of Statute 1 of these Statues, if not already included. (b) Within three months from the date of coming into force of the Statutes under this Chapter, the Governing Body of a College, as envisaged in clause (a) shall be reconstituted accordingly. (c) Any notice in writing in this behalf shall be sent by the University to the Secretary or the President of the Governing Body of such a college and in that case such notices shall be deemed to have been duly served on the Governing Body of the college. (d) If the Governing Body of such a college is not reconstituted within the period referred to in clause (b), the Executive Council may appoint an Administrator to take over the management of the college. The Administrator shall cause reconstitution of the Governing Body of the college within three months from the date of his appointment in accordance with the provisions of Clause (a). (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph (1), in the case of a college established and administered by a minority based on religion or language and affiliated to the University under the stipulation as contained in the Memorandum and Articles of Association or the Deed of Trust, as the case may be, the Governing Body of such college shall be constituted in accordance with the terms of the said Memorandum and Articles of Association or the Deed of Trust, as the case may be. 14. 14. In his defence, the Respondent No. 5 has submitted that after his appointment, he wrote to the Vice-Chancellor of the Gourbanga University to the effect that in order to implement the Order passed by this Court he was required to take necessary steps to form new governing body of Balurghat Law College within 6 months from the date of communication of the Order which was due to expire in the month of March, 2013 and he expressed his desire to consult relevant statutory provisions of University of Gourbanga that is, acts, statutes, ordinance, rules, regulations etc. from the Vice-Chancellor of Gourbanga University. He stated that supply of those materials were required for reconstitution of the governing body. This letter was issued by the Administrator on 2nd February, 2013, long after the Order passed by this Court and 3 months after his appointment. 15. Mr. Sadananda Ganguly, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State of West Bengal, submitted initially that regarding maintainability, the question may be kept open but, since the matter was taken up for hearing along with the question of maintainability, he submitted that the Writ Petition ought not to be entertained because of the nature of the prayer in particular Prayer A of the Writ Petition and also for the consequential relief asked for under Prayer B, namely, for removal of administrator for non-compliance of the Order. Mr. Ganguly submits that having regard to the prayer made in Prayer B of the Writ Petition, this Writ Petition should be rejected and instead the writ petitioner should have filed an application for contempt of Court. He submits that for getting the earlier Order complied with, the writ petitioner cannot maintain a separate Writ Petition on the contrary, he should have filed a contempt application alleging non-compliance of the Order passed in W.P. No. 20654(W) of 2013. 16. Heard the parties at length both on the question of maintainability and on merit as well, perused the written notes of argument submitted on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as also the Respondent No. 5 and the decisions relied upon by them at the time of hearing. 16. Heard the parties at length both on the question of maintainability and on merit as well, perused the written notes of argument submitted on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as also the Respondent No. 5 and the decisions relied upon by them at the time of hearing. It is the admitted position that the University has adopted a resolution to follow the statute rules and regulations of North Bengal University for the reason, although, Gourbanga University Act, 2007 has been enacted, the University of Gourbanga has not yet framed the statute. It is not understood, if all other day-to-day function of the University can proceed on the basis of the statutes of North Bengal University as the University of Gourbanga has adopted the same, why the Administrator should feel handicapped to comply with the Order passed by this Court by not holding the election to the Government body in terms of the earlier Order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 20654(W) of 2012 being Annexure P-8 to the present Writ Petition. It is also not understood if the Administrator cannot proceed to hold the election to the governing body of the law college, why then Gourbanga University appointed the Respondent No. 5 as an Administrator for the said purpose? Because the Administrator was appointed not for taking responsibility of day-to-day affairs of the college, but for holding the election for the purpose of reconstitution of the governing body. Taking advantage of the Order passed by this Court, the Administrator is continuing his other functions excepting the object for which he was so appointed. The Order which was passed on 17th October, 2012, is a time-bound Order. The Administrator was directed to take appropriate steps not only for running day-to-day affairs of the college but he was directed to hold fresh election to the governing body within a period of 6 months from the date of communication of the Order. The Order which was passed on 17th October, 2012, is a time-bound Order. The Administrator was directed to take appropriate steps not only for running day-to-day affairs of the college but he was directed to hold fresh election to the governing body within a period of 6 months from the date of communication of the Order. The defence taken by the University as well as the Administrator cannot be accepted for the reason that had there been any difficulty for the Gourbanga University to carry out the Order passed by this Court, the University should have come before this Court for necessary modification and/or clarification of the Order but, without doing so they have now been showing the excuse of not having their own statute although, admittedly, Gourbanga University has been following the statute of North Bengal University in all other affairs. The stand taken by the Administrator, Respondent No. 5 that he had already communicated a letter dated 2nd February, 2013 to the Vice-Chancellor of University of Gourbanga apprising him of his difficulty to hold the election as aforesaid is only an excuse for avoiding the Order passed by this Court. If he felt himself unable to comply with the Order in absence of these statutes of the concerned University, he either should have left the responsibility of Administrator of the law college or should have come to this Court for clarification. He is found absolutely oblivious about the discharge of his duty assigned to him in terms of the Order passed by this Court. The defects of the University as has sought to be justified that they have authority to extend the term of the Administrator does not answer the question as to why the Court's Order was not carried out in its letter and spirit while the University itself has filed the statutes of North Bengal University before this Court and relied upon Statute 2(d) to show that the University has the power to extend the term of the Administrator for a period not exceeding 18 months. The University, having relied upon such provisions, cannot by-pass the issue of holding election to the governing body as directed by this Hon'ble Court within the time-frame mentioned in the Order passed on 17th October, 2012 in W.P. No. 20654(W) of 2012. The University, having relied upon such provisions, cannot by-pass the issue of holding election to the governing body as directed by this Hon'ble Court within the time-frame mentioned in the Order passed on 17th October, 2012 in W.P. No. 20654(W) of 2012. The objections raised by the respondents that relief sought for in the present Writ Petition cannot be granted, is not sustainable, rather the writ petitioners ought to have approached the Court whose Order the respondents have violated. In this regard, I fully agree with the contention of the petitioner that a separate writ is maintainable even by way of 2nd Writ Petition although proceeding for contempt may or may not be necessary. I also subscribe my view to the reported judgment of this Court in the case of Vivekananda Mondal v. State of West Bengal (supra). The case cited by the respondent University in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib reported in, AIR 1981 SC 487 does not appear to be of any help to the Respondent University. This case does not support the case of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 rather the same supports the contention of the petitioner to some extent on the question of maintainability. 17. I have also considered the judgment cited by the learned Advocate appearing for the University in the case of Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in, 2010 II SCC 114. The said case discussed various issues including an issue of inconsistent and alternative plea when amounts to suppression of facts and/or misleading the Court and whether such suppression and/or misleading will be to abuse of process and as a result thereof, whether there is a chance of denial of hearing. The case at hand and the facts involved therein does not appear to be similar to the said reported case. 18. In the present case, save and except the name of the college being Balurghat Law College in one place and Balurghat Law College Society in another place, no other discrepancy could be ascertained. 19. In view of the discussions above, I hold that the Respondent No. 5 ought to have held the election as per direction contained in the Order dated 17th October, 2012, passed in W.P. No. 20654(W) of 2012 apart from other regular functioning of the law college. 19. In view of the discussions above, I hold that the Respondent No. 5 ought to have held the election as per direction contained in the Order dated 17th October, 2012, passed in W.P. No. 20654(W) of 2012 apart from other regular functioning of the law college. I further hold that before passing the Order by the Registrar of University of Gourbanga granting extension of appointment of Administrator, the University ought to have made a prayer before this Court for extension of the time and without having done so, the decision suo motu taken by such authority is violative of the aforesaid Order dated 17th October, 2012 passed by this Court and, accordingly, I hold that such Order being Annexure P-10 is not sustainable in law and the same is liable to be quashed and, accordingly, the same is set aside. However, keeping in mind of the interest of the students of the law college and the Institute itself, I direct the Administrator to take all steps for reconstitution of the governing body following the rules and statutes of North Bengal University now being followed by the Gourbanga University for the present and to hold fresh election to the governing body as expeditiously as possible but, positively before expiry of 3 months from the date of communication of this Order. 20. The impugned Order dated 13th August, 2013 stands modified, accordingly, to the above extent. The Writ Petition is disposed of. There will be no Order as to costs. Writ petition disposed of by modifying order dated 13th August, 2013.