JUDGMENT : 1. As both these writ petitions involve a common issue, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the reference to facts and exhibits is from W.P.(C).No.1201/2018. 2. The petitioners 1 and 2 are the Executive Committee members of the 3rd respondent Regional Sports Centre, Kadavanthara, and the 3rd petitioner is an erstwhile Executive Committee member of the said Sports Centre. It is stated that during the pendency of the writ petition, the 1st petitioner has been duly elected as the Vice President of the Sports Centre, and petitioners 2 and 3 have been elected as Committee members. The Regional Sports Centre, Kadavanthara, was registered as a Society under the Travancore -Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, as evidenced by Ext.P2 registration certificate. The formation of the Regional Sports Centre was consequent to a decision taken by the State Government to fulfill the noble welfare measure to impart sports training to the public, and in pursuance of which, it assigned a total of 4 acres and 2 cents of land comprised in Sy.Nos.378/2 (Part), 385/4 and 5, 386/3, 388/1 and 2, 390/1, 2, 3, 4 and 391 Part of Elamkulam Village in Kanayannur Taluk, to the Kerala State Sports Council, the 2nd respondent herein. It is not in dispute that the 2nd respondent subsequently got the property mutated in its name, and has been paying the basic tax to the Government. It was as per the Government Order dated 1.8.1970, that the Government transferred the land to the Sports Council. It was clearly mentioned that the Sports Council will use the land for sports purposes only. The Standing Committee of the Kerala State Sports Council, in its meeting held on 25.1.1986, resolved to start the Regional Sports Centre in the land assigned to it, with the objective of providing training in sports to the public. It is stated that, in implementation of the resolution, the 2nd respondent issued Notification dated 21.3.1986, constituting a Committee for the implementation of the Regional Sports Centre. It is thereafter that the 3rd respondent Regional Sports Centre was registered as a 'Society' under the Travancore -Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, for its effective management and administration. It is stated that, in implementation of the resolution, the 2nd respondent issued Notification dated 21.3.1986, constituting a Committee for the implementation of the Regional Sports Centre. It is thereafter that the 3rd respondent Regional Sports Centre was registered as a 'Society' under the Travancore -Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, for its effective management and administration. The expenses for the formation of the Sports Centre and the infrastructure therein, including civil construction were undertaken and supervised by the Government of Kerala through the 2nd respondent Sports Council. It is also stated that the entire fund for the construction was transferred through the Government Treasury. 3. At the time of registration of the 3rd respondent Society, Ext.P8 bye-law (which term, when used in this judgment, refers to the Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association of the society) was filed with the Registrar of Societies. The said byelaw is dated 17.1.1979. As per the said bye-law, the aims and objects of the 3rd respondent Society included the establishment of a Regional Sports Centre under the direct overall control and supervision of the Kerala Sports Council in the land belonging to the Sports Council at Kadavanthara. Another object was to make, adopt, vary, register rules, regulations, bye-laws and conditions for the utilisation of the Centre for the promotion of activities beneficial to the attainment of the objects of the Centre with the prior approval of the Kerala Sports Council. The Articles of Association clearly indicated that the Office bearers of the Sports Centre were to function under the directions and instructions given by the Kerala State Sports Council from time to time, and the decisions taken by the Executive Committee. Clause 27 of the Articles of Association, which dealt with the power to amend the Rules and Regulations, made it amply clear that any amendment, alteration, addition or deletion had to be approved by the Kerala Sports Council, and the amendments would come into effect only from the date of such approval. It is apparent from a perusal of Ext.P8 bye-law of the Society that, the original bye-laws envisaged an overall control of the affairs of the Society by the Kerala State Sports Council. 4. It would appear that the original bye-laws were amended with effect from 1.1.1987 by Ext.P12 bye-law. It is apparent from a perusal of Ext.P8 bye-law of the Society that, the original bye-laws envisaged an overall control of the affairs of the Society by the Kerala State Sports Council. 4. It would appear that the original bye-laws were amended with effect from 1.1.1987 by Ext.P12 bye-law. It is the case of the petitioners that, acting in accordance with the procedure for amendment of the bye-laws envisaged in the original bye-laws, a draft of the amendments proposed was circulated to the 2nd respondent Kerala State Sports Council, and it was pursuant to an approval granted for the proposed amendments, as evidenced by Ext.P10 communication of the 2nd respondent Council, that the amendments were carried out to the bye-laws, and the amended bye-laws published. What is significant to note in the amended bye-laws is that, there was an introduction of a new body, namely, the 'Governing Body', which was to comprise of (i) the District Collector, Ernakulam, (ii) the Mayor of the Corporation of Cochin, (iii) the Chairman of the Greater Cochin Development Authority, (iv) Member of Parliament and other officials from the Police Department, Public Works Department as also the representatives from the 2nd respondent Kerala State Sports Council. The Governing Body was to play a significant role in the management of the Society, and a perusal of the amended Articles of Association also indicates that the amendment to the Rules and Regulations could be effected through a Resolution at a General Body meeting of members with the stipulated majority. What was conspicuously absent in the amended bye-laws was the necessity for any amendment to obtain the approval of the 2nd respondent Sports Council, which was a feature, as already noted, in the original bye-laws. The bye-laws of the Society were again amended on 19.9.2015, as evident from Ext.P13 Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association produced along with the writ petition. In the said amended bye-laws also, the procedure for amendment does not include a procedure of seeking a prior approval of the Sports Council for the amendments to take effect. In short, the net result of the amendments carried out in 1987 and 2015, as borne out by Exts.P12 and P13, is that there was a dilution of the control exercised over the management of the 3rd respondent Society by the 2nd respondent Sports Council. In short, the net result of the amendments carried out in 1987 and 2015, as borne out by Exts.P12 and P13, is that there was a dilution of the control exercised over the management of the 3rd respondent Society by the 2nd respondent Sports Council. This appears to have come to the notice of the 2nd respondent Sports Council only recently, and the present litigation stems from the said belated realisation by the 2nd respondent Sports Council. 5. Sometime in 2017, alleging that the management of the 3rd respondent Sports Centre was not in accordance with the intended objectives for which it was constituted, certain sportsmen, who were honorary members of the Sports Centre, preferred a complaint before the Minister of Sports and Youth Affairs. The Minister, in turn, placed the matter before the Administrative Board of the 2nd respondent Sports Council, and the Administrative Board constituted an Expert Committee for conducting an enquiry into the complaint received by it. The Expert Committee thereafter submitted a detailed report before the Government. Immediately thereafter, W.P.(C).No.20084/2017, styled as a 'Public Interest Litigation' was preferred before this Court, seeking to enforce the suggestions in the report of the Expert Committee. In the said writ petition, this Court directed the State Government to take appropriate action on the report. Although another writ petition W.P.(C).No.23922/2017 was later filed by some of the Executive Committee members of the 3rd respondent Sports Centre, assailing the report of the Expert Committee, and a Review Petition [R.P.No.675/2017] was also preferred to review the directions passed by this Court in W.P. (C).No.20084/2017, this Court disposed the Writ Petition and the Review Petition, by directing the Government to hear the petitioners in those cases also, before taking a final decision based on the report of the Expert Committee. The said judgment of this Court is dated 27.7.2017, and is produced as Ext.P5 in W.P. (C).No.35053/2018. 6. It would appear that the State Government then provided an opportunity to all the parties to place their contentions, and thereafter passed the Government Order dated 14.12.2017, which is produced as Ext.P1 in W.P.(C).No.1201/2018 and as Ext.P6 in W.P.(C).No.35053/2018. The said Government Order is impugned in W.P.(C).No.1201/2018, where, the stand taken is essentially that the State Government could not have directed a management of the 3rd respondent Society through a dispensation provided in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said Government Order. The said Government Order is impugned in W.P.(C).No.1201/2018, where, the stand taken is essentially that the State Government could not have directed a management of the 3rd respondent Society through a dispensation provided in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said Government Order. For the sake of convenience, paragraphs 8 and 9 of Ext.P1 G.O. are re-produced herein, as follows: “8. If the Regional Sports Centre is willfully defaulting in annulling the unapproved amendments, Government will permit the Kerala State Sports Council to proceed with formation of adhoc committee as permitted by the original MoA and bye-laws, with due notice to the Regional Sports Centre. The Kerala State Sports Council is directed to complete the process of cancellation of those amendments not approved by the Kerala State Sports Council, within a period of three months from the date of this order. No further State Government funding to Regional Sports Centre may be taken up or approved until compliance. 9. Considering the vastly expanded mandate of the Regional Sports Centre, Kochi, the Minister in charge of Sports and Youth Affairs will be the Chairman of Regional Sports Centre, Kochi. The District Collector, Ernakulam, who presently hold the post of the Chairman of Regional Sports Centre shall continue as Executive Vice Chairman in view of the fact that the entire irregular amendments to the MoA and bye-laws has escaped the notice of successive District Collectors. The Regional Sports Centre, Kochi shall initiate action to amend the MoA to this effect and obtain approval of Kerala State Sports Council within a month.” 7. In W.P.(C).No.35053/2018, the reliefs prayed for are essentially to strike down the alleged illegal amendments carried out in the original bye-laws of the Regional Sports Centre as also to stall the elections proposed to be conducted to the Office bearers of the Society in terms of the amended bye-laws. When the said writ petition came up for admission, this Court, having regard to the facts and circumstances, ordered that the election proposed to be held could go on provisionally, but results thereof should not be declared without getting permission of the Court. When the said writ petition came up for admission, this Court, having regard to the facts and circumstances, ordered that the election proposed to be held could go on provisionally, but results thereof should not be declared without getting permission of the Court. Thereafter, by another order dated 30.1.2019, this Court permitted the declaration of results of the election, but then finding that paucity of time did not permit the Court to finally dispose the writ petitions, suggested an ad hoc arrangement to be put in place so as to protect the interests of the elected members of the 3rd respondent Society, 2nd respondent Sports Council and the State Government. 8. I have heard Sri.S.Sreekumar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.1201/2018, Sri.Kabil Chandran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. (C).No.35053/2018, Sri.K.V.Sohan, the learned State Attorney appearing for the official respondents of the State in both the writ petitions, Sri.K.Anand, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Kerala State Sports Council/the 2nd respondent in both the writ petitions, Sri.Jaju Babu, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Regional Sports Centre/the 3rd respondent in W.P. (C).No.1201/2018 and the 1st respondent in W.P.(C).No.35053/2018 as also Sri.Rajesh Vijayan, the learned counsel appearing for the additional 4th respondent in W.P.(C).No.1201/2018. 9. A preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents in W.P.(C).No.1201/2018 is the issue of maintainability of the writ petition, in its challenge against the G.O. dated 14.12.2017, on the ground that the petitioners, being mere Executive Committee members of the 3rd respondent Society, cannot have the locus standi to challenge the G.O. which, in effect, affects the functioning of the 3rd respondent Society, and does not affect any of their rights as members of the Society. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel would refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Daman Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others - [ (1985) 2 SCC 670 ]. The contention essentially is that once a person becomes a member of a Society, he loses his individuality qua the Society and he has no independent rights except those given to him by the Statute and the bye-laws. The contention essentially is that once a person becomes a member of a Society, he loses his individuality qua the Society and he has no independent rights except those given to him by the Statute and the bye-laws. It is contended therefore that a member of the Society must act and speak through the Society or rather, the Society alone can act and speak for him qua rights or duties of the Society as a body. Per contra, it is the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that while it may be a fact that the G.O. dated 14.12.2017 affects the rights of the Society, the new dispensation that is suggested by the Government for management of the 3rd respondent Society is one that directly effects their rights, flowing from the bye-laws of the Society, to function as Executive Committee members of the Society. It is also pointed out that, at any rate, the Society itself is impleaded as a 3rd respondent in the writ petition, and the stand of the Society is one that is supportive of the challenge raised by the petitioners against the G.O. dated 14.12.2017. On a consideration of the rival submissions, I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that their rights flowing from the amended bye-laws, which are in force, have in fact been affected by the dispensation that is put in place through the G.O. dated 14.12.2017. Under those circumstances, I cannot but reject the contention raised on behalf of the respondents as regards the locus standi of the petitioners to impugn the Government Order aforementioned. 10. Coming then to the legality of the G.O. itself, while it is, no doubt, true that the G.O. was passed pursuant to a direction issued from this Court in the earlier round of litigation, it has to be noticed that the amendments that were carried out to the bye-laws of the 3rd respondent Society in 1987 [Ext.P12] and 2015 [Ext.P13] have not been challenged by the 2nd respondent Sports Council before any court of competent jurisdiction. If, as vehemently contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent Sports Council, as also the State Attorney, there was any illegality/irregularity in the amendments carried out to the bye-laws of the Society in 1987 or 2015, then that ought to have been a matter that was agitated before a competent court, and a declaration of such illegality in the amendment process obtained by the said respondent from the said forum, before initiating consequential action based on a declaration of illegality of the amendments. In my view, without impugning the alleged irregular/illegal amendments carried out to the bye-laws of the Society, neither the 2nd respondent nor the State Government could have arrogated to itself the right to uphold its views as regards the alleged illegality/irregularity of the amendments made to the bye-laws and substituted an alternate dispensation for the management of the 3rd respondent Society, different from that contemplated under the existing bye-laws. The impugned G.O. dated 14.12.2017, while directing the 2nd respondent Sports Council to take up the matter regarding the alleged irregular/illegal amendments with the appropriate authorities, went further and virtually found that the amendments were in fact illegal/irregular. In my view, neither the State Government nor the 2nd respondent Sports Council could have unilaterally adjudicated on the contentious issue regarding the validity of the amendments carried out to the bye-law, especially when they were both contesting parties to the said dispute. Accordingly, I am of the view that Ext.P1 G.O. dated 14.12.2017, impugned in the writ petition, cannot be legally sustained. I accordingly allow W.P. (C).No.1201/2018, by quashing Ext.P1 G.O., with consequential reliefs to the petitioners. For the same reasons as stated above, the prayers in W.P. (C).No.35053/2018 cannot be granted, and accordingly, the said writ petition is dismissed. Taking note of the interim arrangement that is now in force, pursuant to the order dated 30.1.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in these writ petitions, it is made clear that the management of the affairs of the 3rd respondent Sports Centre shall be by the body duly elected in accordance with the provisions of the existing bye-laws.