Judgment Both the applications have been heard together and will be governed by the common judgment. In these two applications prayer has been made to quash Annexure-'2', the order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies (respondent no. 1) on 26.2.1977, under the provisions of Bihar & Orissa Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. In order to appreciate the points it will be necessary to state some relevant facts. There is a Co-operative Bank known as Bihar Barh-Fatwah Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. with headquarters at Bihar sharif, duly registered under the Act. Respondent no. 6 Badaura Narsanda Multi Purposes Co-operative Society Ltd. is also a registered society and affiliated to the aforesaid Bank Respondent nos. 4 and 3 are President and Hon. Secretary of the Multi Purpose Co-operative Society (respondent no. 8) and they obtained a loan of Rs.41,171.53 paise for being distributed among its member. That amount, it is said, was distributed but loan was never repaid and, thereafter, respondent no.3 passed a resolution on 26.6.1972 for a joint award against respondent no. 6 and its defaulting members. The claim Was for a sum of Rs.41.000/- and odd, as mentioned above as principal and Rs.59,23.63 paise as interest, along with a sum of Rs.500/- as cost and the claim case was filed before respondent no. 2 and was admitted on 29-1-1973. The petitioners were noticed and they filed their show cause denying their liability and also stated specifically that they were never the members of that Society (respondent no. 6). It was also pointed out that their thumb impressions have been forged and loans had been granted to persons who were dead at the time when the applications were filed. Witnesses were examined and respondent no. 2 by his order dated 6.10.1974 exonerated petitioners from the liability and held that respondent nos. 4 and 5 were liable for the amount. A copy of the order has been filed and marked Annexure-1. Respondent nos. 4 and 5 preferred an appeal under section 48(6) of the Act and the Deputy Registrar by his order dated 26.2.1977, as contained in Annexure-2, has remanded the case to the Assistant Registrar for a fresh consideration. The operative portion of the order is as follows:- Prima facie evidence of membership and dues outstanding against the members are the registers required to be maintained as laid down in the registered bye laws. The operative portion of the order is as follows:- Prima facie evidence of membership and dues outstanding against the members are the registers required to be maintained as laid down in the registered bye laws. Affidavits are not acceptable in view of that provisions. In the light of the findings recorded above the case is remanded to the court below for rehearing and taking decision according to law". The petitioners being aggrieved by the aforesaid order has preferred this application. In C.W.J.C. No. 969 of 1977 there are four petitioners and it is stated that they were never members of respondent no. 6 Society and they bad never applied for loan and the are not liable in any manner. 3. Mr. Bose appearing on behalf of the petitioners in both the cases has submitted that the Assistant Registrar (respondent no. 2) has dealt with the matter in great detail and has held that the petitioners never received any loan and they were not debtors. He had also held that some of the persons who had received the loan were not alive at the time when the applications were filed on their behalf and he held respondent nos. 4 and 5 liable for the dues. The appellate Court while remanding the case has held that the petitioners are also members and there are dues outstanding against them and the remand has been made for a limited purpose in order to determine their individual liability. This part of the order, according to Mr. Bose is wholly illegal and the entire matter should have been remanded with a direction to the Assistant Registrar respondent no.2 to find out whether the petitioners were actually the members of the Society or not No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents in C.W.J.C. No 863 of 1977. Learned Government Advocate has appeared in C.W.J.C. No 969 of 1977 and has submitted that from the order passed by the Assistant Registrar, petitioner no. 1 of that writ application, namely, Sitaram Singh is the Treasurer and petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4 are members and since the matter has been remanded by appellate court the entire matter will be considered and all the points which have been urged in this Court can be urged before the learned Registrar regarding the question of their me membership and their liability. 2, 3 and 4 are members and since the matter has been remanded by appellate court the entire matter will be considered and all the points which have been urged in this Court can be urged before the learned Registrar regarding the question of their me membership and their liability. After hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in both the cases and learned Government Advocate on behalf of the State in our opinion the contention raised on behalf of Mr. Bose has to be accepted. The order of the Assistant Registrar as contained in Annexure-1 has been placed in extenso before us and we find that he has discussed the matter in great detail. But the appellate court without considering these reasons given by the first court has remanded the matter for a limited purpose in order to determine the liability which cannot give an effective relief to the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 863 of 1977. In our opinion instead of Assistant Registrar hearing the matter we quash the order of the Deputy Registrar respondent no. 1 as contained in Annexure-2 and remand the case to him for a fresh consideration in accordance with law. The learned Deputy Registrar (respondent no. 1) will consider an the points which will be raised before him and shall determine whether the petitioners are members of the Society and whether they had received loan from the Bank and then fix the liability for the repayment of the loan. The matter is pending since 1974, and in that view of the matter, we further direct that the petitioners should appear before the Deputy Registrar within three weeks from today and the learned Deputy Registrar will fix a firm date for hearing of the matter. It will be open to the parties to place all the points which have been raised before us in the application and respondent no. 1 will pass orders in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months from today. 4. Both the applications are accordingly, allowed and Annexure-2 passed by respondent no 1, is quashed and the matter is remitted back to him for a fresh decision in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. But in the circumstances of the Case the parties shall bear their own casts. Application allowed.