IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.200 of 2009 M/S MITHAPUR TEL VIKRETA RIKSHA CHALAK SAHKARI SAMITI & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4 3.3.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the original writ petitioner who is respondent no.2 in the present Civil Review application, namely, Ram Sakal Sahni and learned counsel for the State. The present application is for review of the order dated 23.3.2009. By virtue of this order passed in CWJC No. 3457 of 2009 the Court disposed of the writ application with a direction upon the District Audit Officer to ensure that the two officers appointed as Audit Officers to conduct audit of what is known as Mithapur Tel Vikareta Riskshwa Chalak Co-operative Society, is carried out within a time frame since the order/direction dated 16.12.2008 had not been carried out for a long period of time. The present review application has now filed by the Society through the Secretary stating that he was not made a party to the writ application and he was not heard on the issue. The order has implication on the society. The stand of the present petitioner is that the audit had already been carried out by the approved auditor in the month of September, 2008 and the audit note/report was submitted to all concerned on 1.2.2007. But despite the said fact this aspect was suppressed by writ petitioner, namely, Ram Sakal Sahni in CWJC No. 3457 of 2009 and the said order has come to be passed. - 2 - Even if what has been stated by the petitioner seeking review is accepted to be true still no case for review is made out. The Court however can only clarify that if an audit has already been carried out and report submitted and it is in accordance with the requirement of the Act/Rule then may be a second audit may not be required to be held. Another aspect which emerges from the submission at the bar is that the petitioner has raised all kind of objections against the order dated 16.12.2008 which is annexure- 11 to the impugned order. In otherwords all these aspects are within the domain of the Registrar of the Co-operative Society. If that is so no review is required of the initial order except an observation that the petitioner has freedom to pursue the matter before the Registrar. Since it is an old dispute going on between the members of the Society about the way the accounts are maintained, it is an obligation upon the Registrar to see that all these issues are heard, including the objection of the petitioner at the earliest and pass an appropriate order. This review application stands disposed of with the above observation. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)