IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.948 of 2010 1. The Dream Co-Operative House Construction Societies Ltd. Ramnabagh, Bari Path, Naya Tola, Patna Through Its Chairman .. Appellant. Versus 1. The Registrar Co-Operative Society, Bihar, Patna 2. The Additional Registrar, Co-Operative Societies (Planning), Bihar, Patna 3. The Joint Registrar Co-Operative Societies (Hqtrs.), Bihar, Patna 4. Naushaba Usmani W/O Late Z.A. Usmani R/O D-5, Sapra Apartment, Naya Tola, P.S.- Pirbahore, Distt.- Patna 5. Zeda Usmani D/O Late Z.A. Usmani R/O D-5, Sapra Apartment, Naya Tola, P.S.- Pirbahore, Distt.- Patna 6. Rena Usmani D/O Late Z.A. Usmani R/O D-5, Sapra Apartment, Naya Tola, P.S.- Pirbahore, Distt.- Patna 7. Asfar Usmani S/O Late Z.A. Usmani R/O D-5, Sapra Apartment, Naya Tola, P.S.- Pirbahore, Distt.- Patna 8. Ahmad Usmani S/O Late Z.A. Usmani R/O D-5, Sapra Apartment, Naya Tola, P.S.- Pirbahore, Distt.- Patna … Respondents. ---------------------------------- 6. 02.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment rendered by the learned single Judge whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant Co- operative Society bearing C.W.J.C.No. 14365 of 2002 has been dismissed. The impugned order before the writ court dated 4th April 2002 passed in appeal by the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies and also the other order impugned dated 30th October 1996 passed by the Joint Registrar, Co- operative Society under Section 48 of the Co-operative Societies Act ( for short, ‘Act’) were found to be good and lawful order by the writ court and hence no interference 2 was made with the same. Mainly two grounds, both technical in nature, appear to have been raised by the appellant before the writ court and the same have been raised before us also. The first ground is that an associate member of the Co- operative Society the original allottee, namely, Z.A. Usmani whose heirs are on record could not have raised the dispute for determination under the provisions of Section 48 of the Act. The writ court has extracted Section 48 of the Act and has found the submissions untenable in view of Section 48(1)(b)(a) and sub-section (2)(F)(fff) of the Act. In our view, even a nominal or associate member as per Sub-section(2) (fff) means a ‘Member’ and possess specified privileges and rights. We are in agreement with the views of the writ court so far as legal position is concerned. The Co-operative Society allotted a flat to Mr.Z.A. Usmani treating him as a member entitled for the same and hence it is not possible to accept the contention that he could not have raised a dispute under Section 48 of the Act. So far as other defense of the appellant is that the authorities deciding the dispute u/s 48 of the 3 Act which could not have passed an order of the nature was actually passed requiring the Co-operative Society to hand over the flat allotted to Mr. Usmani on his paying the entire due amount including the escalation in price. It is further case of the appellant that the alternative direction to return the money deposited by Mr. Usmani with 15 per cent interest could also not be passed by the authorities. So far as the direction for refund of the money is concerned, is not relevant because it was to be done only when Mr.Usmani failed to deposit the said amount u/s 48 of the Act. Since he tendered the entire amount within time, the writ court held that so far as the direction to hand over the Flat on payment of due amount is concerned, it was within the power of the authorities exercising power u/s 48 of the Act. For this purpose, power is vested in the authorities u/s 48(7) of the Act which was rightly found to be of significance. The Registrar exercising power u/s 48 of the Act has been vested with certain powers of the civil court including inherent powers specified u/s 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The civil court in absence of statutory provisions has inherent power to decide a dispute in accordance with cannons of justice, equity and good 4 conscience. In that view of the matter, we find no error or illegality in the order of the writ court to warrant interference. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Jay/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J) (Shivaji Pandey, J)