IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 8515 of 2009 1 Panchanan Sharma, son of late Krishna Singh, resident of Village – Amhara, P S – Bihta, District – Patna 2 Krishna Prasad Singh, son of late Brajnandan Singh, resident of village – Panchrukhia, P S – Fatuha, District – Patna 3 Ram Dular Sharma, son of late Raghunath Prasad Singh, resident of Village & P S – Pandarak, District – Patna - Petitioners Versus 1 The State of Bihar 2 The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar, Patna 3 The Dy Registrar (J), Cooperative Societies, Bihar, Patna 4 The Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Patna Division, Patna 5 The District Cooperative Officer, Patna 6 The Bihar State Election Authority through its Chief Election Officer, Barrack No 11, Old Secretariat, Patna – 800 015 - Respondents ----------- 3 28.01.2010 I A No 8167 of 2009 has been filed by the petitioners for interim relief of stay of Annexures-1 and 1 (1) by which they have been held to be disqualified in terms of Rule 23 (f) read with Rule 24 of the Bihar Cooperative Societies Rules. It is not in dispute that a criminal case is pending against the petitioners in which cognizance has been taken. The offence related is a cooperative offence. Petitioners had independently sought for quashing of those criminal proceedings but this Court did not interfere rather directed petitioners to move the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate where the matter is still pending. On basis thereof, the Registrar has held that the petitioners suffer from disqualification as contained in Rule 23 (f) and consequently in terms of Rule 25, they cease to be members and disqualified as such as well. In view of the fact that cognizance has been taken for a cooperative offence against the petitioners, so long as the order of 2 cognizance stands, the disqualification would attach to the petitioners and, as such, the I A cannot be entertained. I A No 8167 of 2009 is dismissed. Once it is so held then in my view, the writ petition itself does not survive consideration as the action impugned cannot be said to be illegal or without jurisdiction. Petitioners having suffered disqualification, necessary consequences whereof are provided in Rules 24 and 25 of the Rules and they cannot be evaded in the facts of the present case. That being so, Annexures-1 and 1 (1) cannot be interfered. The writ application, thus, itself is misconceived and is dismissed as such. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)