TARDIH PRAKHAND MATASYAJIVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN heard the parties and with their consent, this writ application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. Shri Keshav Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel appears on behalf of the Petitioners and in support of the Writ Petition and Shri Yogendra Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appears on behalf of contesting Respondent No. 5, validity of whose registration is under challenge. State is represented and records have been produced by the State as per previous Orders of this Court.

(2.) RESPONDENT No 5 made an application for registration of Co -operative society in terms of Bihar Co -operative societies Act, 1935. The registration application was forwarded and ultimately reached the Registrar, Co -operative society, who is the competent designated Authority in terms of Sec. 11 of the Act, to register. It appears that the Registrar, who is the statutory Authority to register, instead of registering himself, forwarded the same for approval of the State Government presumably in terms of the State Government Notification No. 45 dated, 3.09.1998 (Annexure -4). The State Government then apparently granted approval. The Registrar then sent the application noting Government 'sapproval to the Assistant Registrar, Darbhanga for registration and issuance of registration certificate. Accordingly, Respondent No 5 was registered and certificate of registration was issued to him signed by the Assistant Registrar. Neither of the parties have disputed these basic facts.

(3.) SHRI Yogendra Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent certificate and, as such, he cannot be held to be in possession of an invalid certificate of registration or a document having no legal effect or sanctity. He submits that even if there was a mistake committed in the office of the Registrar or by the Registrar for that mistake his client cannot be punished or made to suffer because his client had nothing to do with that mistake. Even otherwise, it is submitted that in terms of Sec. 11(2) of the Act, an application for registration would be deemed to be granted within ninety days if it is neither rejected within the said period nor is there any defect to be cured pointed out within the said period. It is his submission that ' in the present case the latter two contingencies do not apply as neither has application was rejected nor any defect in it pointed out then even if there was no Order by the Registrar granting registration, it would be a registration by default or a deemed registration in terms of Sec. 11(2) of the Act. On both these counts, the validity of his organization as a registered Co -operative society cannot be questioned.