JUDGMENT : NYAPATHY VIJAY, J. 1. The present Writ Appeals are directed against the Order dated 10.05.2024 in I.A. No. 1 of 2024 in W.P. No. 10316 of 2024 and consequential order of vacating the order of status quo in I.A. No. 2 of 2024 in W.P. No. 9209 of 2024. 2. The parties as arrayed in W.A. No. 538 of 2024 are referred in the narration. 3. The brief facts of the cases are as follows: The appellant herein is the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 9204 of 2024 and respondent No. 6 in W.P. No. 10316 of 2024. The appellant is involved in the business of trade and cultural exhibitions. The respondent No. 6 is a society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is administered on its constitution and bye-laws. The society had entered into a license agreement with one Nakka Prasada Babu on 20.11.2017 to run trade and cultural exhibitions in A.C. College Play Grounds i.e. the play ground of respondent No. 5 and popularly known as “Gunta Grounds” on annual rent of Rs.5,00,000/- for a period of five years i.e. from 2018 to 2022 during the period 15th March to 30th June. 4. The licensee under the said agreement had expired on 25.05.2020 and his brother i.e. respondent No. 8 herein claims that the license was transferred in his favour for the unexpired portion of the agreement and further extension upto the year 2027. An endorsement on the original license deed was said to have been made by the President and Treasurer of respondent No. 6-Society. 5. On the strength of the extended period of agreement, the respondent No. 8 approached the Municipal authorities and sought for permission to conduct exhibition and sought for written permission to conduct exhibition at the Gunta Grounds from 15.03.2024 to 30.06.2024 vide application dated 18.01.2024. On the strength of the agreement, the respondent No. 4 issued permission for holding exhibition in the grounds on certain conditions specified in the proceedings dated 16.02.2024. 6. This permission was questioned in W.P. No. 9209 of 2024 by the appellant herein on the ground that there was no permission or agreement between the respondent No. 8 and the respondent No. 6. 6. This permission was questioned in W.P. No. 9209 of 2024 by the appellant herein on the ground that there was no permission or agreement between the respondent No. 8 and the respondent No. 6. It is their further case that the respondent No. 7 had addressed a letter on 29.01.2024 to the respondent No. 4 stating that they had not issued any permission to the respondent No. 8 to conduct any exhibition in the subject grounds. A resolution of the respondent No. 4 vide LCM No. 507 dated 20.05.2021 was relied upon to contend that the respondent No. 6 had consciously refrained from extending the license agreement in favour of legal representatives of late Nakka Prasada Babu and that the exhibition should be given to party whoever offers highest rent. 7. It was also pleaded that the Correspondent and the Principal of respondent No. 7 had allotted the ground in favour of the appellant/petitioner vide proceedings dated 07.03.2024 for the period 15.03.2024 and 30.06.2024 and the same was communicated to respondent No. 4 vide letter dated 09.03.2024. The petitioner/appellant also claimed that they had deposited Rs.10,00,000/- to the respondent No. 7 and an application dated 13.03.2024 was made to respondent No. 4 for granting permission to hold exhibition. In the pleadings, various other grounds were also urged. 8. Therefore, this Court on 22.04.2024 passed an interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo as on the date on all aspects. In supposed compliance of the interim orders of this Court, the respondent No. 4 vide proceedings dated 26.04.2024 directed respondent No. 8 to stop the conduct of trade and cultural exhibitions at Gunta Grounds, Guntur and to maintain status quo on all other aspects. Now, this proceedings of respondent No. 4 in calling upon the respondent No. 8 to stop the exhibition is the subject matter of challenge in the second Writ Petition i.e. W.P. No. 10316 of 2024. 9. In the pleadings, in support of W.P. No. 10316 of 2024, it was pleaded that the order of respondent No. 4 is beyond the scope of the interim order passed by this Court referred supra and that they have valid documents to show that they are entitled to conduct exhibition in the Gunta grounds. This Writ Petition was filed by two individuals i.e. respondent Nos. This Writ Petition was filed by two individuals i.e. respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in W.A. No. 538 of 2024 on the basis of an agreement executed by respondent No. 8 in their favour vide agreement dated 11.03.2024. In the said agreement, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in W.A. No. 538 of 2024 were permitted to use the ground for exhibition for the period 15.03.2024 to 30.06.2024. 10. The learned Single Judge after hearing the respective counsels passed an elaborate order upholding the agreement in favour of Nakka Ananda Babu and the proceedings dated 26.04.2024 were suspended and the status quo orders granted in I.A. No. 2 of 2024 in W.P. No. 9209 of 2024 were vacated vide orders dated 10.05.2024. Hence, the present Writ Appeals. 11. Heard Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Sri Narra Sreenivasa Rao, learned counsel for contesting respondent Nos. 1 & 2 i.e. writ petitioners in W.P. No. 10316 of 2024. 12. The learned Senior Counsel contended that the agreement in favour of respondent No. 8 is not genuine and relied upon the resolution of the Society dated 22.05.2021 and the letter issued by the Society on 29.01.2024 to the respondent No. 4 specifically stating that they have not issued any proceedings to any person permitting to conduct exhibition. Further, the learned Senior Counsel contended that the respondent No. 8/Nakka Ananda Babu had filed O.S. No. 461 of 2022 before the Junior Civil Judge, Guntur for declaration that the said individual has exclusive rights to conduct trade and cultural exhibitions in Gunta grounds, Guntur as a license holder and tenant of respondent No. 6-Society and the said suit was withdrawn without seeking any liberty to file any fresh suit and as such the claim of respondent No. 8 on the basis of the very same agreement is unsustainable and abuse of judicial process. 13. The learned Senior Counsel also contended that permissions were accorded to different individuals to conduct exhibitions in the years 2021 and 2022 which by itself indicates that the so called license in favour of respondent No. 8 was never acted upon by respondent No. 6-Society. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that findings of fact on disputed questions in the Writ Petition have been recorded and the same is unsustainable. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that the respondent Nos. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that findings of fact on disputed questions in the Writ Petition have been recorded and the same is unsustainable. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 do not have any locus to file the Writ Petition as the permission given by the respondent No. 4 is non-transferable as per the by-laws framed vide G.O.Ms. No. 278, M.A. dated 29.06.1973. 14. In response to the arguments of the Senior Counsel, Sri Narra Sreenivasa Rao contended that the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have invested huge amounts and they would be put to serious loss if the exhibition is stalled midway. As regards the locus, it was contended that the petitioners being the agreement holders of the un-official respondent No. 8 are espousing the cause of respondent No. 8 only and are not claiming any independent right. The compulsion to file the Writ Petition by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 was on account of the involvement of respondent No. 8 in the recently concluded general elections. On the aspect of withdrawal of the suit, it was contended that the suit was withdrawn as there were negotiations between the Society and respondent No. 8 and a compromise was promised by the Society. The learned counsel relied upon the proceedings of respondent No. 6-Society in support of his contention. Further, it was contended that the proceedings dated 26.04.2024 by the respondent No. 4 to stop the exhibition is contumacious and overreaching the interim order of this Court. 15. The following issues fall for consideration in these Writ Appeals: (a) Whether the agreement in favour of respondent No. 8 could be relied upon? (b) Whether the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 i.e. writ petitioners in W.P. No. 10316 of 2024 have locus to contest the case? 16. Issue (a): The entire case revolves around license agreement in favour of respondent No. 8. The resolution dated 20.05.2021 of respondent No. 6 makes it apparent that there is a specific denial of any license agreement in favour of respondent No. 8 and this is confirmed by the fact of letter dated 29.01.2024 issued by the respondent No. 7-College. The letter dated 29.01.2024 was issued by the Correspondent of respondent No. 7-College who happens to be the President/Moderator/Bishop of respondent No. 6. The letter dated 29.01.2024 was issued by the Correspondent of respondent No. 7-College who happens to be the President/Moderator/Bishop of respondent No. 6. The respondent No. 8 was aware of the denial of extension of license agreement in his favour by the respondent No. 6-Society and therefore had filed O.S. No. 461 of 2022 specifically referring to the extension of license agreement in his favour at Para 8 of the plaint. In the said plaint, the fact that permission for exhibition to a third party from 20.12.2021 to 28.03.2022 was specifically referred and the said third party was also arrayed as defendant No. 8 in the said suit. 17. Though the respondent No. 8 sought for interim injunction in the said suit, the same appears to have not been granted and for reasons best known to respondent No. 8, the said suit was dismissed as not pressed on 02.04.2024 on the basis of a memo filed by the respondent No. 8. The effect of withdrawal of Writ Petition/Suit was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarguja Transport Service vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior and others1. In the said Judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that no fresh suit can be maintained in respect of the same subject matter after abandoning the earlier suit or by withdrawing to file fresh suit and that this is based on principle of public policy. The Para 7 of the said Judgment is extracted below for ready reference: “The Code as it now stands thus makes a distinction between ‘abandonment’ of a suit and ‘withdrawal’ from a suit with permission to file a fresh suit. It provides that where the plaintiff abandons a suit or withdraws from a suit without the permission, referred to in sub-rule (3) of rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code, he shall be precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of such subject-matter or such part of the claim. The principle underlying rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code is that when a plaintiff once institutes a suit in a Court and thereby avails of a remedy given to him under law, he cannot be permitted to institute a fresh suit in respect of the same subject-matter again after abandoning the earlier suit or by withdrawing it without the permission of the Court to file fresh suit. Invito benificium non datur. Invito benificium non datur. The law confers upon a man no rights or benefits which he does not desire. Whoever waives, abandons or disclaims a right will loose it. In order to prevent a litigant from abusing the process of the Court by instituting suits again and again on the same cause of action without any good reason the Code insists that he should obtain the permission of the Court to file a fresh suit after establishing either of the two grounds mentioned in sub-rule (3) of rule 1 of Order XXIII. The principle underlying the above rule is rounded on public policy, but it is not the same as the rule of res judicata contained in section 11 of the Code which provides that no court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly or substantially in issue has been directly or substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court. The rule of res judicata applies to a case where the suit or an issue has already been heard and finally decided by a Court. In the case of abandonment or withdrawal of a suit without the permission of the Court to file a fresh suit, there is no prior adjudication of a suit or an issue is involved, yet the Code provides, as stated earlier, that a second suit will not lie in sub-rule (4) of rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code when the first suit is withdrawn without the permission referred to in sub-rule (3) in order to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court.” 18. Therefore, the respondent No. 8 cannot rely on the agreement said to have been executed in his favour as the right under the agreement is deemed to have been abandoned. As regards the contention of the counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 that the suit was withdrawn in view of proposed compromise cannot be considered in this Writ Petition as the suit was withdrawn without specifying any such reason. 19. As regards the contention of the counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 that the suit was withdrawn in view of proposed compromise cannot be considered in this Writ Petition as the suit was withdrawn without specifying any such reason. 19. Further, it is also not in dispute that the respondent No. 6-Society had been issued permissions for conducting exhibitions to third parties other than respondent No. 8 from the year 2021 onwards. Therefore, the issue (a) is held in favour of the appellant/petitioner. 20. Issue (b): The permission for conducting exhibitions is required to be taken from the Municipal authorities and this statutory requirement is traceable to “The Hyderabad Municipal Corporation bye-laws regulating the holding of Fairs and Exhibitions, 1973.” These rules were framed under Section 586(40) R/w Section 115(10) of HMC Act, 1955. As per Rule 22(2) thereof, the written permission granted under these bye-laws are not transferable and Rule 23 thereof prescribes that if there is any violation of the byelaws, the same shall be punishable as provided under bye-law No. 23. The agreement dated 11.03.2024 in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2/Writ Petitioners in W.P. No. 10316 of 2024 is in effect transfer of license and contrary to the bye-law referred above. As such, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 cannot be said to have any locus since the very agreement is contrary to law. Hence, this issue is held in favour of the appellants. 21. Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the Writ Appeals are disposed of, directing the respondent No. 4 to consider the application of the writ appellant dated 13.03.2024 for conducting exhibition and issue appropriate proceedings thereon within a period of one (1) week from today, without reference to the impugned proceedings dated 16.02.2024 in favour of respondent No. 8. 22. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.