Judgment PRABHA SHANKER MISHRA, J. 1. The petitioner in C. W. J. C. No. 1287 of 1983 and C. W. J. C. No. 1617 of 1983 although described in one as the Multipurpose Co-operative Society, Salmari and the other as Primary Krishi Sakh Sahyog Samiti, Salmari is one and the same. In C. W. J. C. No. 1287 of 1983, it is represented by Md. Majibur Rahman one of its executive members. In C.W.J.C. No. 1617 of 1983, it is represented by its Chairman. Facts and the reliefs are almost the same and the five respondents are common to both the application including the 5th respondent, Shambhu Dayal Patvari. As the disposal of one will conclude the other, these applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The petitioner, as the Primary Krishi Sakh Sahyog Samiti, satisfies the definition of a Multipurpose Co-operative Society. There is no dispute to the fact that the society shall be entitled to a preferential claim along with the Gram Panchayat for settlement of Hats, Bazars and Melas which do not come within the purview of Section 7A, 7B and 7C of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. The Anchal Adhikari, Azamnagar, in the district of Katihar, on 16-2-1983, accordingly, ordered for issuing notices to the Gram Panchayat and the Multipurpose Co-operative Society (the petitioner) stating that settlement of the Hat would be made on 3-3-1983 for the year 1983-84 and the Co-operative Society should appear with the resolution of its executive committee and a clear recommendation of the District Co-operative Officer, Katihar, that settlement should be made with the society on the fixed jama. The Additional Collector, Katihar, had already determined the fixed Jama amount at Rs. 11,674.00 vide his letter No. 195/R dated 2-2-1983. On 3-3-1983/14.3.1983, the second respondent recorded in the order-sheet that service report of the public notice had been received but no application was filed either by the Gram Panchayat or by the Co-operative Society. He called for the settlement by a public auction in which three persons participated. The 5th respondent was the highest bidder. The bid amount being Rs. 14,000.00 only, half of the bid amount being Rs. 7,000.00 was deposited by him vide NR No. 425281 dated 3-3-83. The Anchal Adhikari sent the records to the Deputy Collector in-charge, Land Reforms for acceptance of the bid. The 5th respondent was the highest bidder. The bid amount being Rs. 14,000.00 only, half of the bid amount being Rs. 7,000.00 was deposited by him vide NR No. 425281 dated 3-3-83. The Anchal Adhikari sent the records to the Deputy Collector in-charge, Land Reforms for acceptance of the bid. The order-sheet of Salmari Hat settlement record No. 1/83-84 is Annexure 1 to C. W. J. C. No. 1287 of 1983 and Annexure 2 to C. W. J. C. No. 1617 of 1983. 3. C. W. J. C. No. 1287 of 1983 was placed before a Bench of this Court on 25-3-1983. On that date this Court ordered to place the case for admission on 8-4-83. It further directed that no further steps in pursuance of the auction dated 3-3-1983 would be taken and the petitioner would be entitled to hold the Hat on 4th April, 1983 on its depositing in the court Rs. 300.00 by 1st of April, 1983. The petitioner complied with the order of this Court by depositing on 31-3-1983 a sum of Rs. 300.00 but the Anchal Adhikari (the 4th respondent) ignored the order of this Court and when the petitioner wanted to hold the Hat on 4-4-83, one Sushil Kumar Singh, Inspector of Police in charge, Salmari Out-post Police Station, Azamnagar, the Anchal Adhikari, Azamnagar, the Block Development Officer, Azamnagar and one Rajkumar Ojha, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Salmari outpost, P.S. Azamnagar, took Majibur Rahman, an executive member representing the petitioner in C. W. J. C. No. 1287 of 1983, in custody. A petition for starting as proceeding for the disobedience of orders of this Court was filed being M. J. C. No. 200 of 1983. Alleged recalcitrant respondents were noticed to show cause as to why they be not punished for contempt of this Court. I shall, how ever, deal with the issue of contempt separately. 4. C. W. J. C. No 1287 ad 1983 was admitted. The respondent had, however, appeared before the admission the said application. In a petition filed on his behalf, it was stated that there is no society known as Multipurpose Co-operative Society in the district of Katihar. There was one such society in the past but in, the year 1979-80 it was amalgamested with three other societies and Primary Society known as the Primary Krishi Sakh Sahyog Sarniti, commonly known as PACS was formed. There was one such society in the past but in, the year 1979-80 it was amalgamested with three other societies and Primary Society known as the Primary Krishi Sakh Sahyog Sarniti, commonly known as PACS was formed. The 5th respondent also stated that Majibur Rahman had suppressed material facts and filed the writ application for personal gains. He later entered into an agreement with him (the 5th respondent) to withdraw the writ application in presence of the Pramukh, the Sarpanch and other persons on 4-4-83 itself. C. W. J. C. No. 1617 of 1983 was filed thereafter through the Chairman of the Society. 5. There is no return, however, filed by the respondents 1 to 4 in either C. W. J. C. 1287 of 1983 or C. W. J. C. 1617 of 1983 While showing cause the 5th respondent has maintained in C. W. J. C. No. 1287 of 1983 that there is no society of the name of Multipurpose Co-operative Society, Majibur Rahman who described himself as Executive Member of the Society, had no authority to represent the society, auction was held in accordance with the rules and instructions and as he was the highest bidder, the Hat was rightly settled in his favour. In C. W. J. C, No. 1617 of 1983. he has further stated that the society has not authorised its Chairman to file a writ application. 6. Concluded facts are that (i) Multipurpose Co-operative Society, Salmari and three other Co-operative Societies were amalgamated and Primary Krishi Sakh Sahyog Samiti, Salmari, was formed in the year 1979-80. But the Primary Krishi Sakh Sahyog samiti is also Multipurpose Co-operative Society as defied under the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, (ii) Salmari Hat is one which does not fall under Sections 7A, 7B and 7C of the Bihar Land Reforms Act (iii) the Additional Collector, Katihar fixed Rs. 11,674 as the fixed Jama and according to Governments order the Hat was to be settled with the Gram Panchayat or the Co-operative Society at the fixed jama at the first instance and (iv) the Anchal Adhikari accordingly on 16-2-83 ordered for issuing notices to the Gram Panchayat and the Multipurpose Co-operative Society stating that in case they fail to appear on 3-3-83 for the settlement of the Hat for the year 1983-84, it would be settled by public auction. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a circular on the subject of settlement of Hats, Bazars and Melas, as contained in letter No. E/SRT-5-2366-2302 LR dated 14-3-1966, which clearly recites that in the matter of settlement of Hats Bazars and Melas not falling under Sections 7A, 7B and 7C of the Lands Reforms Act, preference should be given to the Multipurpose Co-operative Societies and Gram Panchayat and whenever the settlement of such a Hat or Bazar or Mela has to be made steps should be taken by the Collector or the prescribed authority to fix the reserve Jama according to his best judgment keeping its view the improvement and developments and following the procedure in this regard in accordance with the letter of the department dated 24-5-1965 and 11-3-1966; to issue a notice to the Multipurpose Co-operative Societies and the Gram Panchayat with copy to the District Co-operative Officer and the District Panchayat Officer; to ascertain if they would take settlement of the Sairat concerned at the reserve Jama so fixed fixing a date by which they should not merely send a reply to the notice expressing their readiness to take settlement at the reserve jams but also to clear of the arrear dues; to settle the Sairat with either the Multipurpose Co-operative Society or the Gram Panchayat at the reserve Jama; and if the Multipurpose Co-operative Society and the Gram Panchayat fail to respond to the notice or if they for the reason of being in arrears are found not eligible to take settlement of the Sairat, to hold public auction for the settlement. The said circular is Annexure 5 to C. W. J. C. NO. 1617 of 1983. 8. Paragraphs (b), (e) and (f) of the circular (Annexure 5) read as follows:- "(b) A notice should then be issued to the Multipurpose Co-operative Society and the Gram Panchayat (with copy to the District Co-operative Officer and the District Panchayat Officer) to ascertain it they would take settlement of the sairat concerned at the reserve jama so fixed. If they would be in arrears a date should be fixed by which they should not merely send a reply to the notice expressing their readiness to take settlement at the reserve jama but also clear off the arrears due. If they would be in arrears a date should be fixed by which they should not merely send a reply to the notice expressing their readiness to take settlement at the reserve jama but also clear off the arrears due. If either the Multipurpose Co-operative Society or the Gram Panchayat expresses its readiness to take settlement at the reserve jams, settlement should be made with it without holding auction provided it is not in arrears and provided such settlement is recommended by the District co-operative or the District Panchayat Officer as the ease may be. (e) If the Multipurpose Co-operative Society and the Gram Panchayat fail to respond to the notice or if they are for reason of being in arrears ineligible to take settlement of the Sairat the Sairat should then be settled through public auction. (f) If the Gram Panchayat and Co-operative Society are unable to pay the reserve jama fixed by the Collector or the prescribed authority but express inclination to take settlement at a specified lower amount than the reserve jama; it would be open to them to participate in the auction provided they are eligible having cleared of all arrears. A copy of the general notice for the public auction be sent to the District Panchayat Officer and District Co-operative Officer. Care should however be taken to see that in such cases the lower amount than reserve jama specified by the Gram Panchayat or Co-operative Society is treated as the Sarkari Dak i.e. the lower bid that could be considered for acceptance." Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the instructions are clear and specific in the sense that notice is required to be given to the Multipurpose Co-operative Society and the Gram Panchayat at the first instance for ascertaining if they would take settlement of the Sairat concerned at the reserve jama or not and it is only after the society and the Gram Panchayat failing to respond to the notice or their having been found ineligible to take settlement of the Sairat, that steps have to be taken for settlement through public auction. A general notice for the public auction contemplated in paragraph f of the instructions (Annexure 5) is an act that should be done after giving to the society a notice as contemplated in paragraph b thereof. A general notice for the public auction contemplated in paragraph f of the instructions (Annexure 5) is an act that should be done after giving to the society a notice as contemplated in paragraph b thereof. The Anchal Adhikari does not appear to have followed this procedure inasmuch as on 16-2-1983 he ordered for issuing notices to the Gram Panchayat and the Multipurpose Co-operative Society for the purposes of settlement of the Hat for the year 1983-84 but in the order-sheet there is no mention of either service of the notice issued on 16-2-1983 upon the Gram panchayat and the Society or for issuing a public notice for settlement by auction. The order dated 3-3-1983/14-3-1983 only shows that some report about the public notice was received and as on that date no application was filed either by the Gram Panchayat or by the Society, the Anchal Adhikari field the public suction. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the public auction and the order to make the settlement in favour of the 5th respondent by the Anchal Adhikari is illegal and mala fide in law. The Anchal Adrikari has either acted in ignorance of the circular or has deliberately ignored the claim of the society (the petitioner). In either case the auction held on 14-3-1983 and consequent acceptance of the alleged highest bid of the 5th respondent are violative of the specific instructions as contained in Annexure 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the respondents by denying the character of the petitioner as Multipurpose Co-operative Society, have in a way given out that no notice was given to the petitioner. This according to him, amounts to denial to the Society its right to take settlement at the fixed jama or to participate in the bid. 9 Learned counsel for the respondents, however, suggested that pursuant to the order dated 16-2-1983, a notice was given to the petitioner and as the petitioner did not appear on 3-3-1983, a public notice was issued and on 14-3-83 bid was held. The petitioner forfeited its right to take the settlement at the fixed jama by not responding to the notice dated 16-2-1983 and holding of the bid on 14-3-1983 after a public notice was not in violation of the instructions as contained in Annexure 5. 10. The petitioner forfeited its right to take the settlement at the fixed jama by not responding to the notice dated 16-2-1983 and holding of the bid on 14-3-1983 after a public notice was not in violation of the instructions as contained in Annexure 5. 10. Hearing of the case was adjourned to enable the learned counsel for the state to produce the records which he ultimately did. Records were examined by the court with the consent of the parties and in presence of their respective counsel. It disclosed that some sort of notice was issued on 16-2-1983, but its service on the persons concerned, is doubtful. It is not possible to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that a public notice was issued for the petitioner and the Gram Panchayat (who) failed to respond to the notice issued to them on 16-2-1983. 11. It cannot be doubted that the procedure envisaged under Annexure 5 shall require a notice at the first instance to the Gram Panchayat and Co-operative Society for the purposes of giving to them opportunity to take settlement at the reserve jama. A general notice for the public auction has to be issued if the Gram Panchayat and the Co-operative Society are unable to pay the reserve jama fixed by the Collector or the prescribed authority. This general notice for the public auction shall be sent to the District Panchayat Officer and the District Co-operative Officer as well as to the Gram Panchayat and the Co-operative Society. In the instant case this procedure has not been followed. Even assuming, although there is no material to conclude, that a notice was served upon the petitioner (the Multipurpose Co-operative Society) and the Gram Panchayat calling upon them to state if they would take settlement of the Hat at the reserve jama or not, a copy of the general notice for the auction was not issued as required under paragraph f of Annexure 5. Holding of the auction on 14-3-1983 in such a manner is, therefore, a violation of the instructions as contained in Annexure 5. Mr. Holding of the auction on 14-3-1983 in such a manner is, therefore, a violation of the instructions as contained in Annexure 5. Mr. B. P. Pandey learned counsel for the 5th respondent most fairly conceded that the procedure envisaged under Annexure 5 has to be followed in every case of settlement of Hats, Bazars and Melas which do not come within the purview of Sections 7A, 7B and 7C of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. As indicated above, his only endeavour before us has been to show that the petitioner suffered because it did not respond to the notice served upon it as ordered on 16-2-1983. He has not disputed that the Primary Krishi Sakh Sahyog Samiti is a Multipurpose Co-operative Society. I have no manner of doubt that the respondent No. 4 (Anchal Adhikari) has acted in a perfunctory and arbitrary manner. The procedure adopted by him is such that can be reasonably described as mala fide in law. The auction held on 14-3-1983 for the Hat, in question, and the recommendation for settlement in favour of the 5th respondent, are evidently without jurisdiction. 12. There is no doubt that the respondents concerned in M. J. C. No. 200 of 1983, knew well that the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 1287 of 1983, although described as Multipurpose Co-operative Society. Salmari, was the same as the Primary Krishi Sakh Sahyog Samiti, Salmari, when they received the order of this Court dated 25-3-1983 in C.W.J.C. No. 1287 of 1983. The defence which they have taken against the charge of disobedience of the order of this Court is undoubtedly a lame excuse. Least that can be said in this background, is that the respondents concerned intended not to obey the order of this Court dated 25-3-1983. But Majibur Rahman, the Executive member who represented the society in C. W. J. C. No. 1287 of 1983, has also exhibited lack of scruples. I do not want to dilate any further into this matter but to express my disapproval to what the respondents have done. 13. Although it has not been argued with any emphasis but since it has been stated in the counter affidavit of the 5th respondent that the Chairman of the petitioner-society in C.W.J.C. No. 1617 of 1983 has not been authorised to represent the society and as such the writ application is not maintainable. 13. Although it has not been argued with any emphasis but since it has been stated in the counter affidavit of the 5th respondent that the Chairman of the petitioner-society in C.W.J.C. No. 1617 of 1983 has not been authorised to represent the society and as such the writ application is not maintainable. I propose to deal with this aspect also. The petitioner has produced a resolution showing authorisation in favour of Mujibur Rahman to move this Court in C.W. J. C. No. 1287 of 1983. But authorisation or no authorisation locus standi to challenge a void action by a writ petition, is a question that has been answered more than once by the Courts. A cause of a public concern can be brought to this Court by any person. A person who has got some interest of his own, which is not common with the public, has got locus standi to petition this court for the redressal of the wrong and removal of the injury. In order to have the locus standi to invoke this Courts jurisdiction for a writ of certiorari, the maximum that can be asked for is that the petitioner should be a person aggrieved. The society undoubtedly is a person aggrieved. As pointed out in the case of Jasbhai Motibhai V/s. Roshan Kumar, AIR 1976 SC 578 , the expression "aggrieved person" denotes an elastic and to an extent, an elusive concept. Its scope and meaning depends on diverse, variable factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which contravention is alleged, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of the petitioners interest and the nature and extent of the prejudice or injury suffered by him. In the case of Gadde Venkateshwara Rao V/s. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 828 , right of a member of a committee to question the validity of an action affecting the rights of the committee was recognised as sufficient to give him a locus standi. Apparently, in the instant case, the society is before us. Even if it is accepted that the society in its general body or executive committee has not authorised the Chairman to represent it, Chairmans individual concern and some interest of his in the society cannot be denied. Apparently, in the instant case, the society is before us. Even if it is accepted that the society in its general body or executive committee has not authorised the Chairman to represent it, Chairmans individual concern and some interest of his in the society cannot be denied. His standing as an individual, in view of the authorities of the Supreme Court is sufficient to invoke certiorari jurisdiction of this Court. 14. In the view that I have taken, this application must succeed. It is accordingly allowed. The auction held on 14-3-1983 and the order recommending the settlement in favour of the 5th respondent dated 14-3-1983 as contained in Annexure 2 are hereby quashed. The respondents 2 to 4 are directed to proceed for the settlement of the Hat in accordance with law as if there has been no bid held on 14-3-1983 and there has been no recommendation for the settlement in favour of the 5th respondent, namely, Shambhu Dayal Patwari for Salmari Hat for the year 1983-84. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case there shall be an order for Costs in favour of the petitioner payable by the respondents 2 to 5 Hearing fee Rs. 250/-. S.SARWAR ALI, J. 15 I agree.