CHITARPUR MATSAYAJEEVI SAHYOG SAMITI THROUGH ITS SECRETARY KISHORI RAM CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant interlocutory application has been preferred on behalf of the intervener -applicant Potamdaga Maatsyajeevi Sahyog Samiti Ltd., Dulmi, Ramgarh through its President Karu Kewat seeking his impleadment as party respondent in the present writ application whose registration granted by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society, Hazaribagh vide Registration No. 07/Hazaribagh/2011 has been impugned in the present writ application by the petitioners which is also a Matsayajeevi Sahyog Samiti. Strangely enough, though the registration of the instant intervener has been sought to be challenged, but the petitioners have not impleaded him as a party respondent whose vital rights are likely to be affected on the outcome of the writ application. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application is allowed and the intervener is allowed to be impleaded as a party respondent no. 6 in the instant writ application, for which necessary correction may be carried out by the counsel appearing on behalf of the intervener -applicant during course of the day in red ink. Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) PETITIONERS in the present writ application, have prayed for quashing of the certificate issued by the respondent no. 5 -Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Hazaribagh in favour of the intervener -applicant vide 07/Hazaribagh/2011.

(3.) THE State respondent, on the other hand, have appeared and filed their counter affidavit. It is their considered stand that the area originally comprising within the two blocks Chittarpur and Chattar Mandu were reorganized leading to creation of new block of Dulami. Recognizing the fishing rights of the society, registration have been granted in favour of the newly added respondent no. 6 and it does not amount to any amendment in the bye -laws of the petitioners society for which no compliance of provisions of section 26 of the Bihar Cooperative Society Act was necessary. He further submits that the petitioners have alternative remedy of appeal which they have failed to invoke.