JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Shri M. Devananda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri H.S. Paonam, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri S. Dijeshwor, learned Advocate for the respondent, Sepak Takraw Federation of India and Ms. L. Monomala, learned Government Advocate for the State Respondents. 2. The instant three writ petitions arise out of the similar set of facts and therefore, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. W.P. (C) No. 822 of 2014 3.1 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner association praying for issuing an appropriate writ directing the respondent No. 2, Sepak Takraw Federation of India to revoke the temporary suspension of the petitioner association. 3.2 According to the petitioner association, it is a society registered in the year 1982 under the provisions of the Manipur Societies Registration Act, 1989 and the aim and objective of the petitioner association is to promote and develop the game of Sepak Takraw in the country and in particular, the State of Manipur. The petitioner association is affiliated to the respondent No. 2, Sepak Takraw Federation of India and under its aegis and active patronage, the players from the State of Manipur were and are able to participate in many National and International Sporting events/Championships. Besides such participation being taken by the players and officers from the State of Manipur in the said National and Regional Championships, the petitioner association was allowed by the respondent No. 2, Sepak Takraw Federation of India to hold championships in the State of Manipur. 3.3 In a General Body Meeting of the petitioner association held on 22-06-2014, its officer bearers and executive members were elected for the term 2014–2018 by strictly following the bye-laws as well as the provisions of the Manipur Societies Registration Act, 1989 and the respondent No. 2, Sepak Takraw Federation of India was duly informed about it. Accordingly, the Secretary General, the respondent No. 2, Sepak Takraw Federation of India addressed a letter dated 23-06-2014 to the President/Secretary of the petitioner association requesting it to inform the players and the coaches and to make sure that they attend the National Coaching Camp to be held on 29-06-2014 at Victory Indoor Stadium, Chaderghat, Hyderabad (AP). Accordingly, the Secretary General, the respondent No. 2, Sepak Takraw Federation of India addressed a letter dated 23-06-2014 to the President/Secretary of the petitioner association requesting it to inform the players and the coaches and to make sure that they attend the National Coaching Camp to be held on 29-06-2014 at Victory Indoor Stadium, Chaderghat, Hyderabad (AP). 3.4 To its shock and dismay, the respondent No. 2, Sepak Takraw Federation of India declared the said election of the office bearers of the petitioner association as null and void and decided that an Ad-hoc Committee be constituted vide its letter dated 30-06-2014. However, according to the petitioner association, the Registrar of Societies, Manipur vide its letter dated 04-08-2014 had accorded approval to the said election of the office bearers of the petitioner association. In consequence of the said letter dated 30-06-2014, the respondent No. 2, Sepak Takraw Federation of India issued a notice dated 05-10-2014 for holding a meeting of the Executive Body on 01-11-2014 to discuss the agenda as regards the conversion of the temporary suspension of the petitioner association into permanent disaffiliation along with other agenda. 3.5 It appears that no formal decision was taken or for that matter no order was issued by the respondent No. 2, Sepak Takraw Federation of India temporarily suspending the petitioner association from being the member of the respondent No. 2, Sepak Takraw Federation of India. A copy of such an order is not placed on record. The petitioner association, assuming probably from the notice dated 05-10-2014 that it has been suspended temporarily, approached this Court praying for appropriate writ directing the respondent No. 2, Sepak Takraw Federation of India to revoke the temporary suspension. W.P. (C) No. 184 of 2015 4.1 During the pendency of the said writ petition being W.P. (C) of 822 of 2014, a resolution was passed by the respondent No. 2 in its Annual General Body Meeting held on 01-11-2014 for permanent disaffiliation of the petitioner association and for forming an Ad-hoc Committee. W.P. (C) No. 184 of 2015 4.1 During the pendency of the said writ petition being W.P. (C) of 822 of 2014, a resolution was passed by the respondent No. 2 in its Annual General Body Meeting held on 01-11-2014 for permanent disaffiliation of the petitioner association and for forming an Ad-hoc Committee. Being aggrieved by the said resolution dated 01-11-2014, the petitioner association challenged it by way of filing the present writ petition on the inter-alia grounds that the respondent No. 2 has no legal authority to intervene in the election of the office bearers of the petitioner association; that no notice was given to the petitioner association for holding the said Annual General Meeting although 21 days notice was required to be given as per the rules and regulations of the respondent No. 2 and that the rules do not provide for disaffiliation of the petitioner association from the respondent No. 2. W.P. (C) No. 318 of 2015 5.1 According to the petitioner association, surprisingly and much to its consternation, the Secretary General, the respondent No. 2 issued an order dated 15-12-2014 constituting an Ad-hoc Committee comprising the Director of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of Manipur and two representatives from the respondent No. 2 who were international players from the State of Manipur. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 15-12-2014, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner association on the inter-alia grounds that the respondent No. 2 has no authority to constitute the said Ad-hoc Committee and as such, is not sustainable and illegal and that even after the representatives from the Sports Department having been withdrawn, the Ad-hoc Committee was constituted to suit the whims and fancies of the respondent No. 2 by adopting a method of pick and choose with vested interest. 6 The said writ petitions being W.P. (C) No. 822 of 2014 and W.P. (C) No. 184 of 2015 are contested by the respondent, Sepak Takraw Federation of India (hereinafter referred to as the “respondent federation”) by filing separate two affidavits-in-opposition raising preliminary objections that the petitioner association has not come before this court with clean hands and has concealed material facts; that the petitioner association has not whispered a word about the reasons of its suspension; that the petitioner association having no interest in the development of Sepak Takraw in the State of Manipur has manipulated the election of its office bearers and that the writ petitions are not maintainable on the ground that the petition ought to have been filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi since all the respondents have their office bearers and place of work in Delhi. As regards the merits of the case, it is stated that the respondent federation being a sole body to develop, manage, control and regulate the sports of Sepak Takraw in India, consists of various associations and All India Control Boards as its members; that the respondent federation has the power to make new member and to take action against the existing members in the form of suspension or penalty etc. Since the petitioner association had not followed the decision taken in the meeting held on 16-10-2013 at Kohima, the respondent federation vide its letter dated 30-06-2014 informed the petitioner association that its election be declared as null and void and that an Ad-hoc Committee be constituted for managing the affairs of the sport of Sepak Takraw in the State of Manipur in the interest of the sports till fresh and fair election is held; that the respondent federation was compelled to conduct such a step on account of non-transparent election being held in violation of the rules; that the respondent federation has the right to regulate the functioning of its members and make rules, regulations and by-laws to ensure democracy, transparency, accountability and good governance. In the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 318 of 2015, an affidavit-on-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. In the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 318 of 2015, an affidavit-on-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 5 to 8 wherein it is stated that Ad-hoc Committee has been constituted in the interest of the players after the disaffiliation of the petitioner association and that the said Ad-hoc Committee is looking after the affairs of the sports of Sepak Takraw in the State. In a way, they have supported the case of the respondent federation. 7 Admittedly both the petitioner association and the respondent federation are societies registered under the provisions of the Manipur Registration of Societies Act, 1989 and the Societies Registration Act, 1860 respectively. The purpose for which the petitioner association and the respondent federation are established, remain almost the same in the sense that both are intended to develop and promote the sports of Sepak Takraw in the country. The only difference is that the respondent federation has its jurisdiction all over the country and that of the petitioner association is confined to the State of Manipur only. Since the petitioner association is affiliated to the respondent federation, their relationship is to be governed by the Rules and Regulations of the respondent federation. Article 7 of the Rules and Regulations provides that the membership is opened to Sepak Takraw Associations in the States of India and all India organisations such as Sports Control Board or Railway Sports Control Board etc. and the General Council shall comprise three representatives from each of its members. The power and functions of the General Council are listed in Article 12 which is reproduced herein below: “12. POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF GENERAL COUNCIL:- 01. To formulate the policy of the Federation. 02. To elect office bearers and Members of the Executive Committee at the expiry of the term. 03. To frame rules for honorary and association membership or patron ship of the Association and invite the President of the Republic of India or any other dignitary to be the patron in chief of the Federation. 04. To impose and enforce penalties or any violation of the Rules or bye-laws of this Federation. 05. To control the dues and funds of the Federation and expend the same in the best possible manner. 06. To appoint auditor to examine and certify the Association and Balance Sheet of the Federation Annually and to fix their remuneration. 07. 04. To impose and enforce penalties or any violation of the Rules or bye-laws of this Federation. 05. To control the dues and funds of the Federation and expend the same in the best possible manner. 06. To appoint auditor to examine and certify the Association and Balance Sheet of the Federation Annually and to fix their remuneration. 07. To call regular and special meetings of the Council and to fix the date and place for holding all meetings. 08. To approve the budget of the Federation. 09. To organizing championship and selection trails to select the team and officials for the Olympic Games, World Championship, Asian Games or any other international tournaments. 10. To conduct National Championship, Zonal Tournament, Federation Cup and any other International tournaments. 11. To appoint Finance Committee, Technical Committee, Panel and any other sub-committee and to fix terms of reference. 12. To appoint a Selection Committee, to select India Sepak Takraw teams for the international participation and to appoint referee Boards for Referees Selection. 13. To maintain International, National and Federation Cup Records. 14. To assist and arrange National Coaching Camp for Sepak Takraw. 15. To organize Sepak Takraw Referee Clinic, Seminar Camps and Examination. 16. To amend the constitution when considered necessary. 17. To enrol State Association and all India Boards. 18. To maintain a register of approved officials and players. 19. To hold or arrange to hold individual physical efficiency tests. 20. To raise funds for the Federation and receive Grants from the Government, Donation from public and any other authorities and to administer the same. 21. To explain and interpret the rules and regulation of the S.T.F.I. and to give decision on any points not covered by them. 22. To maintain affiliation with the Indian Olympic Association and International Sepak Takraw Association, Asia Sepak Takraw Federation any other reorganized Body by I.O.A. and Indian Government. 23. To make rules and regulations for conducting National Championship, National Games Championship, Federation Cup, open Championships and any other Championship. 24. To give membership to the new patrons and life members when necessary. 25. To Council shall have powers to suspend any member or players from the national competition without assigning any reason thereof.” Article 20 of the Rules and Regulations provides for suspension and re-instatement which reads as under: “20. SUSPENSION AND RE-INSTATEMENT:- 1. 24. To give membership to the new patrons and life members when necessary. 25. To Council shall have powers to suspend any member or players from the national competition without assigning any reason thereof.” Article 20 of the Rules and Regulations provides for suspension and re-instatement which reads as under: “20. SUSPENSION AND RE-INSTATEMENT:- 1. The Council shall have power to suspend any member of Sepak Takraw from National Competitions for the period decided by the Executive Committee. 2. On the application of any member, the council may reinstate any Sepak Takraw team or player who by reason of any infringement of the S.T.F.I. Rules has been declared him illegible to take part in competitions must be forwarded to Hony. Secretary. 3. A list of person who are members of the society within the meaning of section 15 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 will be mentioned in the Schedule VI to the Societies Registration (Maharashtra) Rules, 1971 vide rules 15 thereof. 4. If a change is desired in the name or object of the Society or amalgamation of two or more societies is desired, procedure prescribed in section 12 or 12. A of Societies Registration Act, 1860 will be followed.” 8. It has been submitted by Shri M. Devananda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner association that the respondent federation does not have any authority or power to declare the election of the petitioner association as null and void and consequently, its disaffiliation by the respondent federation is illegal. It has also been submitted that there is no provision for disaffiliation in the rules and regulations except for suspension. On the other hand, Shri H.S Paonam, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent federation has submitted that the respondent federation is an apex body which is considered/declared to be public body by the Government of India and has the power to make/frame its own rules and regulations including instructions, guidelines etc. All members affiliated to it have to follow them and failure on their part to follow its rules and regulations will entail penal consequences including suspension, disaffiliation etc. It has been further submitted by him that the petitioner association has concealed material facts from this court and accordingly, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed by this court. All members affiliated to it have to follow them and failure on their part to follow its rules and regulations will entail penal consequences including suspension, disaffiliation etc. It has been further submitted by him that the petitioner association has concealed material facts from this court and accordingly, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed by this court. In view of the rival contentions, the following issues have arisen for consideration by this court: (a) Whether the respondent federation has the power to declare the election of the petitioner association when the said election has been held in accordance with the provisions of the Manipur Registration of Societies Act, 1989? (b) Whether the respondent federation is justified in disaffiliation of the petitioner association on the ground of its election having been declared as null and void by the respondent federation? (c) Whether the petitioner association has concealed material facts from this court thereby rendering its present writ petition liable to be dismissed by this court? (d) Whether the respondent federation is empowered by its rules and regulations to constitute an Adhoc Committee? In Re: Issue No. (a) & (b): 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner association being a registered society, is affiliated to the respondent federation and would be governed by the rules and regulations framed by it. But on perusal of the said rules and regulations of the respondent federation, it is evident that the said rules and regulations are silent as to how the relationship between its members including the petitioner association and the respondent federation would be regulated and the procedure to be followed at the time of taking any action against its members, is also not prescribed therein. As has been stated hereinabove, the membership is opened to the associations in the States, all India governmental organisations etc. and not to any individuals at all. In other words, to be a member of the respondent federation, one has to be a registered institution or all India organizations established by the Government or its agencies. The petitioner association is a society registered under the provisions of the Manipur Registration of Societies Act, 1989 and since the petitioner association is governed by the provisions of the said Act, it has to act within its ambit. The petitioner association is a society registered under the provisions of the Manipur Registration of Societies Act, 1989 and since the petitioner association is governed by the provisions of the said Act, it has to act within its ambit. In case of violation of bye-laws or any provisions of the said Act and on receipt of information about it, the Registrar under Section 22 may order an enquiry into it and after the enquiry having been held, it shall submit the report to the State Government which may give directions for removal of any defects or irregularities and in case of failure in removing the defects or irregularities by a society, may direct the Registrar to move the court for dissolution of the Society. Section 23 provides that when an enquiry has been held, the Registrar may, if satisfied that the Society has contravened any provisions of the Act or rules made there under or has conducted business not in accordance with the bye-laws or for any reason mentioned therein, cancel the registration after giving notice in writing to the society specifying briefly the grounds thereof and after giving an opportunity to show cause as to why the cancellation of registration should not be made. The election of the office bearers of the petitioner association is to be held in accordance with the bye-laws approved by the Registrar under the provisions of the said Act at the time of registration or any amendment made thereon and the conduct of election is an internal affair of the petitioner association and in the event of the said bye-laws being violated, it is open to any aggrieved person to approach the Registrar for taking necessary action against the society under the provisions of Sections 22 and 23 of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner association that the respondent federation has no power to declare the election as null and void, appears to be correct and countenanced. But the contention that there is no provision for disaffiliation is not acceptable to this court for the reason that the power of affiliation will include the power of disaffiliation. In other words, the power of disaffiliation is implicit in the power of affiliation. But the contention that there is no provision for disaffiliation is not acceptable to this court for the reason that the power of affiliation will include the power of disaffiliation. In other words, the power of disaffiliation is implicit in the power of affiliation. It is the State Government, on receipt of a report of enquiry, which has the power to give directions for removal of defects or irregularities and on failure to do so by a society, to direct the Registrar to move the court for dissolution. The Registrar is also conferred the power to cancel the registration on the grounds mentioned in the Act and in the manner indicated therein. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner association has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Corporation Federation Vs. B. Narasimha Reddy & ors., reported in (2011) 9 SCC 286 to contend that the right to form an association is a fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. Nobody would deny the principles laid down therein but is not relevant for the purpose of deciding the issues involved herein. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent federation has fairly submitted that all the details cannot be provided in the rules and regulations and doing that will be voluminous and impossible. All that he has submitted is that the respondent federation being an apex body recognised by the international body, has the power to make its own rules and regulations and to issue guidelines, instructions etc. and that the petitioner association being a member enjoying its patronage, is bound by it. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent federation that in an Annual General Meeting of the respondent federation held on 16-10-2013, it was resolved that all members must submit their minutes of the meetings in which all the details as regards the election of the office bearers namely election dates, name of election officer, election schedule, nomination date, withdrawal date, voting mode etc., are mentioned, within 21 days from the date of election and that in case of any of the members failing to supply the said information, the respondent federation reserves the rights to declare the election as null and void and disaffiliate the member. It is also the submission of the learned senior counsel for the respondent federation that since the petitioner association failed to comply with the said resolution, its election held on 22-06-2014 was declared as null and void and accordingly, a decision was taken by the Executive Council for disaffiliation of the petitioner association and on the same day in a meeting held on 01-11-2014, the said decision of the Executive Council was approved and petitioner association was permanently disaffiliated. According to him, the said decision was taken in order to ensure fairness, transparency and accountability in the management and administration of the affairs of the respondent federation as well as its members. These contentions of the learned senior counsel for the respondent federation are not acceptable to this court except that the respondent federation has the power to frame its rules and regulations to be abided by it and its members and consequent disaffiliation on the ground that election is null and void, is not sustainable in law. As has been stated above, the election of the petitioner association is its internal affair and is to be held in accordance with the bye-laws and in case of violation of bye-laws, it is the State Government or the Registrar who are empowered under the provisions of the Manipur Registration of Societies Act, 1989 to take action against the society. The respondent federation cannot encroach upon or usurp the power conferred upon the State Government or the Registrar on the basis of a resolution taken in its meeting. In the name of fairness, transparency and accountability, the respondent federation cannot violate the provisions of the said Act. The respondent federation is neither a supervisory body over the petitioner association in its internal affairs nor is its role referred to anywhere in the Act. If the respondent federation felt that the election of the petitioner association was not held in accordance with law, the only thing that could have been done by it was to inform the Registrar to take action against the petitioner association. A procedure for that purpose is specifically prescribed in the said Act. If the respondent federation felt that the election of the petitioner association was not held in accordance with law, the only thing that could have been done by it was to inform the Registrar to take action against the petitioner association. A procedure for that purpose is specifically prescribed in the said Act. The relationship between the petitioner association and the respondent federation commenced from the day the petitioner association was affiliated as a member and the petitioner association was required to abide by the rules and regulations or the guidelines/ instructions as regards the promotion and development of Sepak Takraw in the country, some of which mention may be made, namely the timely payment of fees, nomination of representatives, supply of information relating to names of office bearers or members or utilisation of funds being provided by the respondent federation, the meetings of the Executive Council to be attended punctually, the conduct of championship in the State in accordance with the instructions/guidelines of the respondent federation, fair selection of players for participating in the national and international championship etc. which are illustrative but not exhaustive. Violation of any of such guidelines/instructions could be a ground for disaffiliation as agreed in the Annual General Meeting held on 16-10-2013 but not on any other ground pertaining to internal affairs of the member, including the election being declared as null and void, which are governed by the laws of their respective States. The procedure to be followed for disaffiliation is also not provided in the rules and regulations but in the absence of it, the principles of natural justice ought to be followed before a member is disaffiliated by the respondent federation. In the present case, it appears that no show cause notice as to why the petitioner association be not disaffiliated, was given to the petitioner association before its disaffiliation and it appears that it was only on the basis of the correspondence between the petitioner association and the respondent federation that the Executive Council took the decision for disaffiliation on the ground that the petitioner association failed to furnish information, well in time, about the conduct of its election and that the election be declared as null and void which was approved in the Annual General Meeting thereby disaffiliating the petitioner’s association permanently. Considering the facts of the present case and having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, this court is of the view that the declaration of election of the office bearers of the petitioner association as null and void is without any authority of law and consequently, the disaffiliation is illegal and hence, is liable to be quashed. In Re: Issue No. (c): 10. As regards this issue, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent federation has submitted that since the petitioner association has suppressed material facts from this court, the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Reliance has been made in the case of Prestige Lights Limited Vs. State Bank of India, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 449 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held: “33. It is thus clear that though the appellant Company had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a court of law is also a court of equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the writ court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter.” Further reliance has been made in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & ors. Vs. Narmada Bachao Andolon & ors., reported in (2011) 7 SCC 639 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held: “8. It is a settled proposition of law that a party has to plead its case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate the averments made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete the court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. 10. Pleadings and particulars are required to enable the court to decide the rights of the parties in the trial. Thus, the pleadings are more to help the court in narrowing the controversy involved and to inform the parties concerned to the questions in issue, so that the parties may adduce appropriate evidence on the said issue. 10. Pleadings and particulars are required to enable the court to decide the rights of the parties in the trial. Thus, the pleadings are more to help the court in narrowing the controversy involved and to inform the parties concerned to the questions in issue, so that the parties may adduce appropriate evidence on the said issue. It is settled legal proposition that “as a rule relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted”. Therefore, a decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties. 11. The object and purpose of pleadings and issues is to ensure that the litigants come to trial with all issues clearly defined and to prevent cases being expanded or grounds being shifted during trial. If any factual or legal issue, despite having merit, has not been raised by the parties, the court should not decide the same as the opposite counsel does not have a fair opportunity to answer the line of reasoning adopted in that regard. Such a judgment may be violative of the principles of natural justice. (Vide Ram Sarup Gupta v. Bishun Narain Inter College and Kalyan Singh Chouhan v. C.P. Joshi.) 12. It cannot be said that the rules of procedural law do not apply in PIL. The caution is always added that every technicality in the procedural law is not available as a defence in such proceedings when a matter of grave public importance is for consideration before the court. (Vide Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P.)” There can be no any doubt about the law being laid down by the Supreme Court but the application thereof depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the instant case, the respondent federation has not specified the material facts which have been suppressed from this court by the petitioner association except that the petitioner association being fully aware of the reasons of its suspension and thereafter, disaffiliation, the petitioner association has not even whispered a word about that in its entire writ petition. The learned senior counsel may be right to the extent that the petitioner association has not stated about it in the averments made in the petition. However, a copy of the letter dated 30-06-22014 has been placed on record wherein the reasons for disaffiliation are mentioned. The learned senior counsel may be right to the extent that the petitioner association has not stated about it in the averments made in the petition. However, a copy of the letter dated 30-06-22014 has been placed on record wherein the reasons for disaffiliation are mentioned. It can be otherwise, had the said document not been produced before this court. Admittedly the facts of the case are not in dispute and moreover, the issues with regard to the substantial question of law, have been raised by the petitioner association. The facts of the present case are different from that of the two cases referred to above. In the case of Prestige Lights Ltd. (supra), the contention of the appellant therein was that since it had submitted a representation on 20-10-2004 wherein it had proposed to pay dues of the respondent bank after selling the land and building of the factory, the action of the respondent bank initiated under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was illegal, unlawful and against the provisions of the Act. The respondent bank denied the receipt of such a representation from the appellant. In the other case namely Narmada Bachao Andolon case (supra), the appellant submitted that the Hon’ble High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition as it did not have material facts/particulars disclosing any cause of action to the writ petitioners even in the PIL. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that in cases where grave public importance is involved, every technicality in the procedural law is not available as a defence. In view of the above, the instant writ petition cannot be dismissed on that ground alone and accordingly, this issue has been decided in favour of the petitioner. In Re: Issue No. (d): 11. On perusal of the materials on record and in particular, the correspondence, the controversy appears to have arisen out of egoistic problems of the executive members of both the petitioner association and the respondent federation who have forgotten that both of them are entrusted the task of promoting and developing Sepak Takraw in the country. Both the petitioner association and the respondent federation are institutions discharging public functions and are expected to act fairly and reasonably and are not private institutions whose objectives are to earn profits. Both the petitioner association and the respondent federation are institutions discharging public functions and are expected to act fairly and reasonably and are not private institutions whose objectives are to earn profits. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent federation has fairly submitted that the respondent federation has been declared by the Union of India as public body and is under the control of the Sports Authority of India. Although the source of income of the respondent federation is not stipulated in the memorandum of association, it is evident from the provisions of Article 12 of its rules and regulations that the respondent federation does definitely receive grants from the Union of India on account of the responsibility being shouldered by it. It may be noted that there are peculiar circumstances in the present case which may have led the petitioner association and the respondent federation to be egoistic in their approach. It is an admitted fact that both are the registered societies and as long as their registrations are not cancelled in accordance with law, no other societies can be registered in their place for the same name and purpose. This is what has happened in the instant case. Although the election of the office bearers of the petitioner association has been declared as null and void, its registration is still valid and continues to be the society so far as the State of Manipur is concerned and no other societies can be registered in its place. Since the petitioner association is disaffiliated, the task of selecting players in the State of Manipur is being entrusted to an Ad-hoc Committee which cannot be made a permanent feature applicable for all the years to come. It may be true that Ad-hoc Committee has been constituted by way of an interim arrangement but since there being no provisions in the rules and regulations for such Ad-hoc Committee, it can be safely held that the respondent federation has no authority to constitute such an Ad-hoc Committee. The respondent federation has to act within the bounds of its rules and regulations. The respondent federation cannot be permitted to do indirectly which it cannot do directly in law. The respondent federation has to act within the bounds of its rules and regulations. The respondent federation cannot be permitted to do indirectly which it cannot do directly in law. It must be left with the State of Manipur but it may also find difficulty for two reasons - one, the petitioner association will continue to be a society so far as the State of Manipur is concerned because its election has been approved by the Registrar and second, the State of Manipur not being a member of the respondent federation, it cannot send its representatives to the General Council. Therefore, both the petitioner association and the respondent federation ought to maintain a healthy relationship in the interest of sports and to endeavour to ensure that both do not indulge in politics and are free from being egoistic in the discharge of their functions. Since both the petitioner association and the respondent federation being legal entities, they have no heart and soul and are manned by persons namely executive members who are expected to act fairly, sincerely, reasonably and bona-fide with no personal interest. The moment they are not sincere, there is always a room for the power being misused by them. The State Government, the petitioner association and the respondent federation can be said to be the stakeholders as regards the development of Sepak Takraw in the State and at this juncture, the role of the State Government is very important whose duty is to protect the interest of its citizens and is expected to arrange a joint meeting of the stakeholders and to thrash out the misunderstanding amongst them so as to avoid such controversy in future. At the same time, it is the high time and is absolutely indispensable for the respondent federation to lay down broad and detailed guidelines to regulate the relationship between it and its members and incorporate provisions therein as regards the procedure to be followed by it at the time of initiating proceedings for suspension or disaffiliation of its member. 12. For the reasons stated herein above, the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 822 of 2014 is dismissed as infructuous. 12. For the reasons stated herein above, the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 822 of 2014 is dismissed as infructuous. The writ petitions being W.P. (C) No. 184 of 2015 and W.P. (C) No. 318 of 2015 are allowed and consequently, the portion of the resolution dated 01-11-2014 pertaining to agenda No. 7 and 12(B) of the respondent federation and the order dated 15-12-2014 issued by the Secretary General, respondent federation are quashed and set aside with no order as to costs. However, it is open to the respondent federation to initiate proceedings for disaffiliation of the petitioner association on other grounds in accordance with law.