IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.346 of 2006 ------- Birendra Prasad Singh, son of late Ram Singh, Resident of Bihar Police Radio, TX Building, Bailey Road, P.S. Shashi Nagar Patna, at present Chairman, The Bihar State Police Co-Operative Society, R Block Patna …….Petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 11629/05) ………Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Registration Co-Operative Societies, Bihar, Patna 3. The Joint Registrar (Judicial), Co-Operative Societies, Bihar, Patna 4. Ashok Kumar Patel, Joint Secretary, The Bihar Police Co- Operative Society Ltd. R Block, Patna (Respondents in C.W.J.C. No. 11629/05) ……… Respondents. ----------- For the Appellant: Mrs. Rekha Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. S. Arshad Alam, S.C. IV Mrs. Anjum Perveen, J.C. to S.C. IV ----------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----------- Dated, the 20th November, 2008. This appeal is directed against the order dated 23rd March, 2006 passed by the Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by him has been rejected. 2. There appears to be serious dispute between the appellant who claims to be the Chairman of Bihar Police Co-Operative Society Ltd.(for short, ‘the society’) and the respondent no. 4, who is - 2 - said to be the Joint Secretary of the Society. The present appellant raised a dispute under section 48(1)(b) of Bihar Co-operative Act, 1935 with regard to unlawful and illegal activities of the present respondent no. 4. On 6th May, 2005, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies passed an ex-parte order holding therein that prima facie illegal activities and irregularities committed by present respondent no. 4 were established and, consequently, stopped him from functioning as the Joint Secretary. The order dated 6th May, 2005 came to be challenged by the present respondent no. 4 by way of revision application before the Registrar, Co-operatives. The Registrar, Co-operatives set aside the order dated 6th May, 2005 passed by the Deputy Registrar and directed the Deputy Registrar to pass fresh orders after hearing the parties. This order passed by the Registrar, Co-operatives on 11th June, 2005 came to be challenged by the present appellant by filing the writ petition. 3. The entire thrust in challenging the said order in the writ petition was that the Registrar was not empowered to entertain the revision from the order dated 7th May, 2005. As a matter of fact, in support of this contention, heavy reliance was placed on a decision of this court in the case of Din Dayal Singh Vs. The Bihar Co-Operative Marketing Union Ltd. reported in A.I.R. 1976 Patna 179. 3. When the matter came up before the Single Judge, on 21st February, 2006 (as reflected from the order which is not under challenge), the decision of this court in the case of Din Dayal Singh was cited and, based on that, the Single Judge passed an interim order - 3 - and issued notice. On 23rd March, 2006 when the matter came up before the Single Judge, on behalf of the present respondent, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Yogendra Prasad Vs. Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar and ors. 1992(1) PLJR (SC) 7 was cited. By this decision, the decision of this court in the case of Din Dayal Singh stood overruled. The Single Judge found that by citing overruled decision, notice was got issued to the respondent which was not fair. The Single Judge, accordingly, dismissed the writ petition. It is from this order that the present appeal has been preferred. 4. The counsel for the appellant does not dispute that the law laid down by this court in the case of Din Dayal Singh is not good law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Yogendra Prasad and there was an error on her part in citing a decision of this court which did not hold the field. To that extent, she did not challenge the correctness of the order passed by the Single Judge. However, she submitted that the order was passed by the Registrar at the back of the appellant and, therefore, this aspect of the matter ought to have been considered by the Single Judge. That this argument was not raised before the Single Judge is not disputed by the counsel for the appellant. When we asked the counsel for the appellant as to whether this ground has at all been set up in the writ petition, she answered in the negative. We are afraid, for want of this ground having been set up in the writ petition and raised the fact that it was not before the Single - 4 - Judge, the appellant cannot be permitted to raise the ground in appeal for the first time that Registrar, Co-operative Societies passed the order on 7th June, 2005 at the back of the appellant. 5. More over, all aspects are open to be considered by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative societies and, therefore, even otherwise no prejudice can be said to have caused to the appellant. 6. Letters Patent Appeal has no merit. It is dismissed with no order as to costs. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Anil/