IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.212 of 2009 1. Chhotelal Sahni, son of Late Somar Sahni. 2. Munger Matsyajivi Sahyog Samiti Ltd. Laloopokhar, Munger through its Secretary Chhotelal Sahni, son of Late Somar Sahni. Both residents of Mohalla-Laloopokhar, P.S.-Kashim Bazar, Distt.-Munger …………… (Petitioner) …………… Appellants Versus 1. The Registrar Co-operative Societies, Bailey Road, New Secretariat, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bhagalpur-cum-Munger Division. 3. The Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, Munger, Distt.-Munger. 4. Munger Prakhand Matsyajivi Swablambi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Laloopokhar, Munger through its Chief Executive Meghana Sahni D/o Bhim Sahni, resident of Mohalla- Laloopokhar, P.S.-Kashim Bazar, Distt.-Munger ……… (Respondents) …………… Respondents ----------- 3 8/5/2009 Heard Mrs. Mahasweta Chaterjee, learned counsel for the appellants. For the reasons mentioned in I.A. No. 2985 of 2009 the delay in filing this appeal is hereby condoned and the I.A. No. 2985 of 2009 is accordingly allowed. Coming to the merits of this case the first submission of Mrs Chaterjee that the appellate authority had exceeded his jurisdiction and in fact had failed to consider the case properly because he had remitted the matter as with regard to functioning of respondent no.4, the Society is to be noted for its being rejected. It is clear from the last but one paragraph of the impugned order that the challenge of the appellant to the registration of respondent no.4, the Society was found to be without substance. Having recorded so the appellate authority has proceeded to examine the mode and manner of functioning of the society and since the society had not appeared the Appellant Authority in the light of the findings in the impugned judgment had remitted the matter 2 back to the Assistant Registrar to examine the functioning of Respondent no. 4 in the context of its registered byelaws and the provisions of the Act. The grievance in fact on this score if any could have been made by respondent no.4 and not by the appellant because case of the appellant was confined only the alleged illegality in the registration of the Society. That being so, the first submission of Mrs. Chaterjee cannot be accepted. Mrs. Chaterjee then submits that as a matter of fact 49 members of the new Society, respondent no.4 had adopted a resolution to form a society but ultimately the Society was got registered with 21 members only. She accordingly submits that this could not have been done by the Chief Executive of the Society without placing the matter again before the General body of the Society. In the opinion of this Court, even this part of the submission of Mrs. Chaterjee will not require any special consideration because at the formation stage of the Society when out of 49 members, ultimately 21 members have stood resolved and form to form the Society and therefore there was no legal disqualification for registration of the society if the remaining 28 members were not made part of the Society. Grievance as with regard to 28 members can also not be raised by the appellant, a parallel society. In the opinion of this Court the second submission is consequently without any merit. 3 Mrs. Chaterjee, then submitted that once application was filed for such registration by the members constituting respondent no.4, the Assistant Registrar had to pass final order and in fact when he had returned his application by not rejecting it but had given opportunity to rectify the mistake in the same application, the procedure adopted thereon is in violation of section 5 of the Bihar Self Supported Cooperative Societies Act, 1996 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act). Such submission of Mrs. Chaterjee, however, lacks is also without substance considering the fact that when the authority, in this case is the Assistant Registrar, was empowered to either accept or reject the application for registration of the Society and he did not choose to reject that application, the method adopted by him by asking certain removal of the infirmity in the application by way of rectification of the mistake, can not be held to be in violation of section 5 of the Act as it does not provide for only one time consideration nor does it also contain any mandatory clause that the moment application was not allowed it would be deemed to have been rejected. In that view of the matter, the grievance of the appellant as with regard to non-compliance of provision of section 5 of the Act is also misconceived. Finally Mrs. Chaterjee submits that the Assistant Registrar while allowing registration of Respondent no. 4, the Society has not gone into the relevant materials on record and such order of registration passed mechanically ought to have been not 4 approved by the Appellant authority. In the opinion of this court even his part of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant seems to be misconceived inasmuch as the Appellate authority while rejecting the appeal had himself examined not only the factual details but fulfillment of statutory requirement for such registration by the Respondent no. 4. That being so, this Court would not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)