WP(C) 6106/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T VAIPHEI Heard Mr MU MOndal, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr G Soren, the learned State counsel appearing for the respondents No.1-6. In view of the nature of the order to be passed, it is n ot necessary to issue formal notices to the respondents No.7 & 8. In the course of Motion hearing of the writ petition, th e learned counsel for the petitioners have confined his prayer to issuing a dire ction by this Court to the respondent No.2 to dispose of the application for re view of the impugned order dated 21.10.2010 within a specific time frame. The fa cts and materials for disposal of the writ petition are not in dispute. The Mana ging Committee of Nizdhing S.S. Ltd is alleged to have mis-managed the affairs o f the society. It is the case of the petitioners that they lodged an FIR before Dhing PS against the said Managing Committee for sale of 241 bags of F.P. ferti lizer to the black market, which was duly registered as Dhing PS Case No.114/201 0, U/S 406/420/34 IPC. In the course of investigation, the Chairman of the Manag ing Committee was arrested and 241 bags of F.P. fertilizer were also seized by t he Police. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Assam (respondent No.2) on t he basis of the complaint of the petitioners, who are shareholders of the societ y vide order dated 23.08.2010 and issued Show Cause Notice to the Managing Commi ttee U/S 36(1) of the Assam Co-operative Societies Act, 1949. Much to the conste rnation of the petitioners, the respondent No.2 without taking the matter to its logical ends, reinstated the Managing Committee of the society vide order dated 21.10.2010, which is the order under challenge in this writ petition. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners filed a review applic ation before the respondent No.2 for re-constituting of a new Managing Committee through an election. Annexure-G is the copy of the application for review. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitione r that the respondent No.2 has not disposed of their review application filed by the petitioners even after a lapsed of over one month. As the respondent No.2 i s not disposed of the review application filed by the petitioners, it will not b e appropriate on the part of this Court to pre-judge the issue and dispose of th e writ petition on merit without the benefit of opinion of the respondent No.2. It will be more expedient if the respondent No.2 take up the review application filed by the petitioners, hear the parties and thereafter take a decision thereo n in accordance with law. The learned State counsel also submits along the line suggested above. In the result, this writ petition stands disposed of by directing the respondent No.2 to examine the review application dated 27.10.2010 filed by the petitioners, hear the parties and thereafter dispose of the same i n accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be completed within 45 days fro m today. If the petitioners are aggrieved of the order being pass ed by the respondent No.2, it shall be open to them to approach this Court again .