ORDER : This is an application by the Ukhrul Road Public Carriers Association, Paona Bazar Road, for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Manipur, to register the Association of the petitioner under Sec. 11 of the Assam Cooperative Societies Act, 1949 after setting aside the order of the Registrar, namely, Annexure-H, dated 8-3-1961, informing the petitioner-association that their proposal for organisation of the Transport Society was treated as cancelled. 2. The petitioner-association was formed in April, 1958, consisting of 16 members who are all owners of motor vehicles, operating in the Imphal-Ukhrul Road. The Association, through its Secretary, applied on 24-2-1959 to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for the registration of the said Association as a Co-operative Society. They wars directed by Annexure-A, dated 4-3-1959 to furnish a fist of the promoters of the said Association and accordingly the list Annexure-B/1 was submitted. Thereafter, the Inspector of Co-operative Societies, informed them by Annexure-B, dated 14-5-1959 that Model Bye-laws, were being prepared and that subsequently an Officer would be deputed to organise the Society. A further letter Annexure-C was sent on 14-7-1959 by the Inspector of Co-operative Societies, requesting all the interested persons to be present on 18-7-1959 at the Office of, the Association. Another letter, Annexure-D was sent on 24-7-1959, requesting the Secretary of the Association to show a Financial Statement from April, 1958 and Balance Sheet etc. as per the instructions given by the Inspector on the- day of his visit The next letter from the Inspector is Annexure-E dated 2-9-1959, stating that an enquiry will be held in connection with the intensification of the registration on 7-9-1959, whatever the word intensification may mean. The next letter is Annexure-F dated 5-10-1959, which is the same as Annexure-B/2, filed for the respondent, in which certain directions were given to the Association with reference to their application for registration. It is not necessary for us to go in detail into those directions. The next letter is Annexure-F dated 5-10-1959, which is the same as Annexure-B/2, filed for the respondent, in which certain directions were given to the Association with reference to their application for registration. It is not necessary for us to go in detail into those directions. In short, it directed that the is promoters should certify that they were not members of any other transport society and will not join any other transport society, that they would give the number and licence of the buses or lorries or other vehicles to be brought into the proposed society, that the promoters should ply the vehicles only in the Imphal Ukhrul Road, that at least 2 trucks for the Society should be owned within 6 months of registration, which would be a condition for the registration, that the promoters must raise 8 share capital of Rs. 8,000/- at the rate of Rs. 500/- per promoter, and that all the promoters must be residents of Imphal Municipal Area or within a distance of 5 miles front it. 3. After this letter was sent, it appears that there was no further correspondence for a period of nearly 1½ years. I also find that another application from 26 persons including 2 members of the petitioner-association was received by the Registrar for registration as a Co-operative Society and the Litan Ukhrul Road Transport Society was given registration by the Registrar on 17-1-1961 as a So-operative Society. It would appear that when this other Society was registered, the petitioner who had for about 1½ years kept quiet on receipt of Annexure-F in October, 1959, suddenly woke up and sent the letter Annexure-C/1 on 30-1-1961 to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, giving the replies to the directions contained in Annexure-F and requesting that the Association may be registered as a Co-operative Society. It would appear that on 6-2-1961, the. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, one V. Gopal Singh, visited the petitioners premises in Paona Bazar, Imphal, and gave the certificate Annexure-G, stating that he found that the Association was working satisfactorily. On 3-2-1961, the petitioner appears to have submitted another petition. A copy of that petition is not filed before me. But in the course of the arguments it was stated that the petition was directed against the registration of the Litan Ukhrul Road Transport Co-operativa Society Limited. On 3-2-1961, the petitioner appears to have submitted another petition. A copy of that petition is not filed before me. But in the course of the arguments it was stated that the petition was directed against the registration of the Litan Ukhrul Road Transport Co-operativa Society Limited. It was in reply to that petition that Annexure-H dated 8-3-1961 was communicated to the petitioner-association from the Office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, in which he was informed that the petitioner-association had failed to furnish the information called for in connection with the proposal for organisation of the transport society and that the proposal was treated as cancelled and hence the application cannot be entertained. The petitioner-association was also informed by the said letter that they may apply for admission in the newly organised Society as the membership of the Society was open to the members of the petitioner-society as well. On receipt of this communication, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition on 29-3-1961, praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to register he petitioner-association as a Co-operative Society and also to set aside the order Annexure-H dated 8-3-1961. 4. There is no question of any writ of mandamus being issued by this Court directing the Registrar of Cooperative Societies to register the petitioner-association as a Co-operative Society. Under Sec. 11 of the Assam Co-perative Societies Act, 1949, which applies to Manipur, it is for the Registrar, to decide all questions as to whether the application for registration complies with the provisions of the rules framed thereunder and whether the subjects of the Society are in accordance with Sec. 4 of he Act and if he is satisfied that the application is in order as stated above and that the proposed bye-laws are not contrary thereto, he may register the Society and to bye-laws and he has also powers to register the bye laws with such modifications as he thinks are necessary to bring about uniformity in the main with the provisions of the bye-laws of Societies which have similar objects or functions. Under Sub-Sec. 4 of Sec. 11, the Registrar can refuse to register a society. But in that case he shall have to record his reasons in writing and to communicate the reasons and his decision to the promoters by a registered letter to their Office. Under Sub-Sec. 4 of Sec. 11, the Registrar can refuse to register a society. But in that case he shall have to record his reasons in writing and to communicate the reasons and his decision to the promoters by a registered letter to their Office. The Registrar is also given power to review his orders in this respect. In the face of such power given to the Registrar, it is not for this Court in a writ proceeding to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the registration of the Society by the Registrar. It is the satisfaction of the Registrar, in respect of Sec. 11 Sub-Sec. (1) that matters and it is not possible for this Court to see whether the application of the petitioner-association complied with the previous of the Act and Rules thereunder and whether the objects of the Society are in accordance with Sec. 4 and whether the proposed bye-laws are correct. The satisfaction of this Court on this matter cannot be substituted for the satisfaction of the Registrar and it is not possible for this Court to issue any writ of mandamus compelling the registration of the Society. Section 11 gives the powers to the Registrar either to register the Society or to reject the application for registration and it gives further power to the Registrar to review his orders. Again, under Sec. 83 of the Act, there is an appeal provided to the State Government against any order of the Registrar on a question of law if it is preferred within 2 months of the communication of the Registrars order. Thus, the Act provides sufficient remedy for the petitioner Society either by review or by appeal in case the Registrar refuses to register the Society. Thus, no writ of mandamus can be issued compelling the registration of the petitioner-association. 5. But in this particular case, I find that the Registrar has not acted in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 11. When the Registrar receives an application for the Registration, of a Society under Sec. 10 of the Act, he has either got to register the Society if the conditions for registration are satisfied or he has to reject the application and refuse to register the Society. When the Registrar receives an application for the Registration, of a Society under Sec. 10 of the Act, he has either got to register the Society if the conditions for registration are satisfied or he has to reject the application and refuse to register the Society. In the latter case, he has to give his reasons in writing far the refusal to register and he has to communicate the same by a registered letter to the Office of the promoters. He has done neither in the present case. What he has done in this case is to treat the application as cancelled as seen from the order Annexure-H. There is no provision in Sec. 11 to treat an application as cancelled. When the petitioner-association failed to give any response to the letter Annexure-F and thus failed to obey the directions contained therein, the Registrar should have rejected the application and refused to register the Society and communicated the order giving his reasons for the same by registered letter to the Association. He failed to do so for a period of 1½ years and the matter was thus in a suspended state. 6. When therefore the petitioner-association submitted its reply to Annexure-F by Annexure-C/1, in which the matters referred to Annexure-F were answered, the Registrar had to see whether after the reply Annexure-C/1, the, conditions mentioned in Sec. 11(1) of the Act were fulfilled and to see whether the application was in order, but he failed to do so. Evidently, he did not apply his mind, under Sec. 11(1) on receipt of Annexure-C/1. Instead, he stated in his order Annexure-H, that he treated the application as cancelled. As I have already stated, there is no provision in the Assam Co-operative Societies Act, 1949, to treat an application under Sec. 10 as cancelled. The words in Sec. 11, Sub-Sec. 2 namely he may register the society and its bye-laws mean, when read along with Sec. 11 Sub-Sec. (4) that the Registrar may either register the society or may refuse to register the society. The Registrar cannot treat an application as cancelled unless the party withdraws the application. Nor can the Registrar keep an application in 3 state of suspense without either registering the society or refusing to register it. 7. The Registrar cannot treat an application as cancelled unless the party withdraws the application. Nor can the Registrar keep an application in 3 state of suspense without either registering the society or refusing to register it. 7. If the Registrar is not satisfied that the conditions in Sec. 11(1) have been complied with, he has to reject the application and refuse to register the Society end give his reasons. This is provided under Sec. 11(4) in order that art opportunity should be given to the applicant to satisfy the Registrar again and make him review his previous order of refusal to register the Association. Or if any question of law is involved, the applicant could go in appeal to the State Government against the order of the Registrar under Sec. 80 of the Act. The order Annexure-H did not amount to an order of refusal to register the Association under Sec. 11(4) of the Act. The petitioner-association has, therefore, a real grievance as the Registrar has failed to act in accordance with Sec. 11. The petitioner-association has no other remedy in respect of an order like Annexure-H, except to come to this Court to direct the Registrar to act in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 11. A writ of mandamus in respect of the order Annexure-H, has to be issued by this Court and till Registrar has to be directed to act in accordance with the previsions of Sec. 11. The order Annexure-H, is, therefore, set aside and the Registrar is directed to deal with the application of the petitioner-association in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 11 of the Assam Co-operative societies Act, 1949. Under the circumstances of the case, I direct both parties to bear their own costs. 8. Before leaving this case, it is necessary for me to say that the counter statement filed on behalf of the respondent in this case is not in order. In a writ application, it is the respondent, who has got to file the counter statement. In this case, an Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies has filed the counter statement and it is seen from the same that he is not a person who knew personally about any of the matters referred to therein and that he was speaking from the records. Such a counter statement should be filed by the respondent and net by any other person. Such a counter statement should be filed by the respondent and net by any other person. This is only mentioned for the purpose of guidance in case of such future applications. Order accordingly.