Judgment :- 1. This writ petition has been brought by a co-operative society by name the Alleppey Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Ltd. through its President and the question raised relates to the validity of an order dated 9th June 1970 passed by the State Government whereby the Registrar of Co-operative Societies was directed to grant permission to register a primary land mortgage bank for the Shertallai Taluk as had been applied for by the convener of the Shertallai Taluk Land Mortgage Bank Promotion Committee. A copy of the impugned order has been produced as an annexure Ext. R-1 attached to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Kerala. 2. The petitioner society has been conducting its activities in the Shertallai taluk also and had included the said area as part of the area of its opera-tion in its bye-laws. At that time there was no separate co-operative land mortgage bank functioning in Shertallai taluk. A committee appears to have been constituted by the residents of the Shertallai taluk with the 3rd respondent as its convener for the purpose of organising a separate land mortgage bank for Shertallai taluk and getting it registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The 3rd respondent applied to the Registrar for sanction under S.6 of the Act for the registration of the pro-posed society. That application was rejected by the Registrar by an order passed on 11th May 1970 on the ground that the Bank if formed cannot work as a viable unit. An appeal was thereupon filed by the 3rd respondent before the State Government under S.83 (1) of the Act challenging the said order passed by the Registrar and it is on that appeal that the State Government has passed the impugned proceedings evidenced by Ext. R-1. The Government after exa-mining the relevant aspects has taken the view that the establishment of a primary land mortgage bank in Shertallai taluk which is a very backward area, would help the people of the locality by providing adequate funds for the improvement of their land and cultivation and that such a step would be consistent with the all India policy to have the primary land mortgage bank established at taluk level. It was also found by the Government that there was no valid ground whatever for regarding the proposal to establish the new society in Shertallai as objectionable from any relevant view-point. 3. The contention put forward by the petitioner society is that the order Ext. R-1 ought not to have been passed by the State Government behind its back and that the principles of natural justice have been violated in passing such an order without affording a hearing to the petitioner society. In support of this contention it was pointed out that the Shertallai taluk is a part of the area of operation of the petitioner society as per its bye-laws which had been duly approved by the Registrar and that as a result of the direction given by the Government to register a separate society of like kind in Shertallai taluk, there will be a pro tanto curtailment of the field where the petitioner society has a right to operate and that such a step necessarily visits the petitioner with adverse civil consequences. I do not find it possible to accept this contention. It may be that at the time when the petitioner society was registered it had framed its bye-laws by including the Taluk of Shertallai also within the area of its operation since at that time there was no similar society functioning in Shertallai. Neither by reason of the inclusion of any particular locality as part of the area of operation of a society in the relevant clause in its bye-laws nor on account of the approval of such bye-law by the competent authority under the Act can it be said that a vested right of monopolistic banking activity has accrued to a parti-cular society, so as to preclude the Registrar or the State Government from subsequently granting registration to another society to operate in any part of the said area. In my view, no legal right of the society can be said to have been affected by the grant of registration to another society to function in a locality which for the time being stands included within the area of operation of the former society. I find that I am supported in this view by the decision of Krishna Rao, J. of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in The Bheeminipatnam Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Ltd. v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh (1967) I An. WR. I find that I am supported in this view by the decision of Krishna Rao, J. of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in The Bheeminipatnam Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Ltd. v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh (1967) I An. WR. 244, which has been subsequently affirmed on appeal by a Division Bench of that High Court in The Vizianagaram Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Ltd. v. The Bheeminipatnam Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Ltd. (1968) 1 An. WR: 52. 4. In as much as 1 have held that no legal rights of the petitioner society can be said to have been affected by the direction given by the Government in Ext. R-1 and that no adverse civil consequences can be said to have been visited upon the society by the grant of registration to another society to function in the Shertallai taluk it must follow that there was no obligation on the part of the State Government to give a notice of afford a hearing to the petitioner society before the impugned order was passed. The contention that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice has therefore to fail. 5. I am also of the view that the petitioner cannot be regarded as a person aggrieved by the order Ext. R-1. In this connection the following observations of the Supreme Court in The Nagar Rice and Flour Mills v. F. Teekppa Gowda &Bros. (1970) I SCWR. 627 may be usefully extracted: "Competition in the trade or business may be subject to such restrictions as are permissible and are imposed by the State by a law enacted in the interests of the general public under Art.19 (6), but a person cannot claim independently of such restriction that another person shall not carry on business or trade so as to affect his trade or business adversely. The appellants complied with the statutory requirements for carrying on rice milling operations in the building on the new site. Even assuming that no previous per-mission was obtained, the respondents would have no locus stand for challenging the grant of the permission, because no right vested in the respondents was infringed". 6. The petitioner has not been able to show that any provision contained in the Act or in the Rules framed thereunder relating to the grant of registration of new society has been violated in passing the order Ext. 6. The petitioner has not been able to show that any provision contained in the Act or in the Rules framed thereunder relating to the grant of registration of new society has been violated in passing the order Ext. R-1 sanctioning the registration of the 3rd respondent society. In such circumstances the above observations of the Supreme Court fully govern the present case and it has to be held that the petitioner has no locus stand for challenging the order Ext. R-1. The writ petition has to fail on this ground as well. 7. The Original Petition is accordingly dismissed. The parties will bear their respective costs.