IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.853 of 2008 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Registrar, Co-operative Society, Old Secretariat, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur, P.S. and District – Muzaffarpur 4. The Asstt. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pupari Sub.division, District Sitamarhi …………. Respondents – Appellants Versus Sunil Prakash, S/o Baleshwar Prasad Sahani, resident of village Bokhara, P.S. Nanpur, District Sitamarhi ……… Petitioner – Respondent. ----------- For the Appellants: Mr. Kameshwar Prasad Gupta, S.C. V ----------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----------- Dated, the 21st November, 2008. Appeal suffers from delay of 280 days. For condonation thereof, an application (I.A. No. 6476 of 2008) has been made. Even if we condone the delay in filing the appeal, we are of the considered view that appeal does not deserve to be admitted and, it is liable to be dismissed in limine. 2. That on the application made by the present respondent before the Assistant Registrar, Pupari Sub – division, Bokhara Prakhand and Fishery Self-supporting Co-operative Society Ltd. was registered on 27th February, 2003, is not in dispute. That the said registration was effected by the Co-operative Extension Officer who - 2 - was working as incharge Assistant Registrar has been found by the Single Judge. Upon issue being raised that the officer who registered the society had no power or competence or authority to grant such registration, the Registrar, Cooperatives vide order dated 15th May, 2007 quashed and set aside the registration of the society. He further held that the registration was ab initio void. The present respondent challenged the order dated 15th May, 2007 by filing a writ petition before this court. The Single Judge held that the Registrar, Cooperatives passed the order dated 15th May, 2007 without giving any notice to the society or its promoter and, therefore, suffered from violation of principles of natural justice. The Single Judge did hold that the registration of the society was effected by Co-operative Extension Officer who was made incharge Assistant Registrar for limited purpose and, therefore, he did not have any competence or power to pass an order of registration. However, applying de facto doctrine, the Single Judge held that registration effected by Co-operative Extension Officer could be sustained. 3. Once the society was registered vide order dated 27th February, 2003, such registration could not have been cancelled by the Registrar, even if we assume that the authority who passed an order of registration was not competent to do so at the back of the society or the promoter. Nothing has been shown that before passing the order dated 15th May, 2007, the Registrar issued any notice to the society or its promoter. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the Single - 3 - Judge setting aside the order dated 15th May, 2007 cannot be said to be legally flawed. However, it needs a clarification by us that it would not be an impediment for Registrar to deal with the proceedings for cancellation of registration of the society afresh in accordance with law and, after hearing the parties pass an appropriate order as may be thought fit and in that event any observation made by the Single Judge in the impugned order shall not influence such consideration of the matter by the Registrar, Co-operatives. 4. With the aforesaid clarification, appeal is dismissed in limine. This disposes of I.A. No. 6476 of 2008 as well. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Anil/