C. K. PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a society, registered under the cooperative Socities Act. By the petition the petitioner is praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certioraci, for quashing the order dated 10. 11. 94 passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Society, whereby the order by the Dy. Registrar dated 20. 9, 1994 has set aside (Annexure p. 1p ). The petitoner furthet prays for quashing of the order dated 25-1-95 passed by the Board of Revenue in Appeal No. A/7-5/c/928/94, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 10. 11. 94 passed by the Joint Registrar has been rejected (Annexure P. 13 ). ( 2 ) SHORT facts giving rise to this peition are : that the petitioner filed an application before the Dy. Registrar on 18-2-94 (Anx. P. 8) seeking relief interalia that 8irld (tank) situated in village Birla. be deleted from the operational area of Resp. No. 3 and it be included in the opertional area of petitioner. The Dy. Registrar by its order dated 20-9-94 acceded to the prayer of the petitioner. Resp. No. 4 aggrieved by the aforesaid order, preferred an appeal before the Joint Registrar, which as stated earlier, was allowed aud the order of the Dy. Registrar was set aside. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid order of the Joint Registrar, as stated earlier, has also been dismissed by the Board of Revenue. ( 3 ) SHRI Amit Agrawal appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the order of the Dy. Registrar dtd. 20-9-94 was after bearing Resp. No. 4. However, without impleading the petitioner, Resp. No. 4 preferrad the appeal and the Joint Registrar passed the impugned order without hearing the petitioner. It is further urged that non-impleading the petitioner as party, before the Joint Registrar, goes to the root of the matter and on this ground alone the order of the Joint Registrar needs to be set aside. It is farther submitted that such a point was raised before the Board of Revenue in second appeal. But the same was not taken note of and on this ground alone the order of Board of Revenu suffers from illegality and deserves to be quashed by this Court. It is farther submitted that such a point was raised before the Board of Revenue in second appeal. But the same was not taken note of and on this ground alone the order of Board of Revenu suffers from illegality and deserves to be quashed by this Court. ( 4 ) SHRI T. N. Singh, appearing on behalf on Respondents submits that the order of Board of Revenue was passed on 25-1-95 and writ petition was filed on 30-6-95. It is submitted that in pursuance of the order of Board of Revenue, the PATTA in relation to the Tank, was given in favour of Resp. No. 4 on 8-2-95 and suppressing the aforesaid fact this writ petition has been filed. In the submission of the learned counsel, the petitioner has not come with clean hands and the writ petition suffers from the defects of delay and latches. Shri Singh further submits that the petitioner has resorted to extra judicial method by sitting on DHARNA etc. . which fact has been denied by the petitioner. In the submission of the learned counsel for the Resp. No. 4, this disentitles the petioner for grant fo extra ordinary relief under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by this court. ( 5 ) SHRI T. N. Singh further submits that after the grant of PATTA, he has spent a huge amount and in that view of the matter, the writ petition deserves dismissal at my hand. ( 6 ) HAVING considered the submission of the learned counsel. I am of the view that no court can set aside the order passed by the inferior court to the prejudice of the party without giving him an opportunity. Admittedly in the present case the petitioner was not impleaded as party before the Joint Registrar when Resp, No. 4 filed the appeal against the order of the Dy. Registrar. The order of the Dy. Registrar was in favour of the petitioner and could not have been set aside by the Joint Registrar without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. On this ground alone the order of Joint Registrar (Anx, P. 11) deserves to be quashed. ( 7 ) AS regards submissions of the learned counsel for respondents that patta having been granted in favour of Respondent. No. 4. the writ petition be dismissed. On this ground alone the order of Joint Registrar (Anx, P. 11) deserves to be quashed. ( 7 ) AS regards submissions of the learned counsel for respondents that patta having been granted in favour of Respondent. No. 4. the writ petition be dismissed. This score, I am of the view tsat the petitioner has not challenged the grant of PATTA to Resp. no. 4. He is aggrieved by the order of the Joint Registrat and the Borad of Revenue and hs sudh the sunmission of the learned counsel that writ petition be dismssed on the ground of laches, delay and concealment of fact, do not impress me. As PATTA in question is not under challenge, the assertion made by Resp. no 4 that he has spent large sum, has not bearings on the decision of the present writ petition. As the order of the joint Registrar is being set aside on the ground of non-justice, further order passed by the Board of Revenue without considering the aforcsid submissions also deseres to be set aside. ( 8 ) IN the result, the order of the Joint Registrar (Anx. P. 11) and that of Revenue (Anx. P. 13) are hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the joint Registrar for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The petitioner and Resp. no, 4 undertake to appear before Resp No. 3 19-2-96 it is made clear that I have not decided the validity or otherwise of the patta granted in favour of Resp. No. 4. After the order is passed by the joint Registrar and. in (as the patta is cancelled, in pursuance of the said order, Parties aggrieved, shall have liberty to resort to any proceedings permis sible under the law. It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion on merits of the grant of PATTA to Resp. no. 4 in the present writ petition. The writ Applicatien stands allowed with the aforesaid observation. Writ Petition allowed. .