IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8533 of 2010 1. SHYAM BIHARI SINGH S/O LATE RAGHUBAR SINGH R/O VILLAGE AND POST- HADIABAD, P.S.- AYER, DISTT.- BHOJPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BHOJPUR 5. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SADAR ARA DISTT.- BHOJPUR 6. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, BHOJPUR, ARA 7. THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE OFFICER BHOJPUR, ARA 8. THE BLOCK CO-OPERATIVE EXTENSION OFFICER GORAHANI, DISTT.- BHOJPUR 9. THE BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER GARAHANI, DISTT.- BHOJPUR 10. THE BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER KOILWAR, DISTT.- BHOJPUR 11. JANG RAWANI S/O ROJHAN RAWANI VILLAGE AND POST- ICHARI, P.S.- AYER, DISTT.- BHOJPUR ----------- 2. 07.04.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State as also the learned Counsel for private Respondent no.11. The petitioner is stated to be Chairman of Ichari Primary Agriculture Credit Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PACS’). He is aggrieved by the order dated 3.4.2010 passed by the SDO Sadar, Arrah directing private Respondent no. 11 to operate PDS licence standing in the name of the PACS. Assailing the order learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that entire action was mala fide. A meeting of the managing committee was not to be held in the chambers of the SDO. The Block Supply officer, Koilwar had nothing to do with the licence which related to Garhani Block. The order of the SDO was therefore thoroughly without jurisdiction. There can be no quarrel with the very broad proposition advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the SDO was not competent to change the operator of the licence standing in the name of the PACS through its Chairman. The fact that the name of the petitioner may have been entered in the licence because he may have been the Chairman, 2 at this stage is inconsequential. The licence was standing in the name of the PACS. But, if the members of the managing committee of the PACS have made a request to the SDO who has then passed the impugned order, it cannot be said that the order of the SDO is without jurisdiction. If it be the request of the managing committee there arises a dispute between the petitioner and the members of the managing committee. That becomes a dispute amenable to Section 48 of the Bihar Cooperative Societies Act before the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies. Whether the resolution of the managing committee was in accordance with law and the bylaws of the PACS are matters to be more appropriately examined in an application preferred by the petitioner under Section 48 of the Bihar Cooperative Societies Act before the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies. The order of the SDO being founded on the request of the members of the managing committee and the resolution/decision of the managing committee if not findiPng favour with the Registrar of Cooperative Societies on an application to be preferred by the petitioner, naturally the impugned order shall become unsustainable. The Court is therefore not satisfied that the impugned order calls for any interference at this stage. If the petitioner files any such application before the Registrar of Cooperative Societies questioning the decision of the managing committee in pursuance of which the impugned order has been passed, it is expected that the same shall be disposed off expeditiously after hearing all concerned within a maximum period of three months positively without granting frivolous or unnecessary adjournment to either parties. If any party refuses to cooperate, the Registrar shall be at liberty to proceed exparte so as to 3 conclude the proceeding within that time but after recording full reasoning in the ordersheet of the efforts made to persuade the defaulting party to participate notwithstanding which he refused to participate. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)