Judgment N. Pandey, J. 1. These three writ applications although on behalf of different petitioners with regard to disputes relating to enrolment of members of the Munger Gun Manufacturer Cooperative Society (hereinafter referred to as the society), for quashing different orders passed by respondents authorities from time to time. Therefore, with the consent of the parties, all the petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. C. W. J. C. No.908 of 1991 was filed by the then Managing Committee of the Society questioning the validity of the order of the Additional Registrar dated 11-1-1991, contained in Annexure 1, whereby he had declared that 452 applicants, including Yogendra sharma as valid members of the society and, therefore, entitled to particiapte in the Annual General Meeting of the society. 3. C. W. J. C. No.3361 of 1992 has been filed by one Raj Kumar Sharma, a member of the Society, challenging the order of the Assistant Registrar, cooperative Society, Munger, dated 4-1-1992 (Annexure 11) whereby he held since the Managing Committee failed to convene Annual General Meeting within the stipulated time, it will be deemed that Committee stands superseded. 4. A prayer has also been made to quash Annexure 12, the order of the joint Registrar dated 25-1-1992, whereby he appointed Cooperative extension Officer as Administrator of the society. Similarly, the order dated 13-3-1992 of the same authority is also under challenge whereby he had allowed all the 452 members of the society to participate in the meeting. 5. The last writ application bearing C. W. J. C. No.5528 of 1994 is on behalf of Mahadeo Sharma, claiming to be a representative of all the 452 newly enrolled members of the Society. In this case, a simple prayer is to quash the decsion of the Joint Registrar, dated 14-7-1993, contained in Annexure 4, whereby he cancelled the previous order dated 4-6-1993, contained in Annexure 4, whereby he cancelled the previous order dated 4-6-1993 (Annexure 3) to direct the Administrator to allot work to the newly-enrolled members of the society. 6. A preliminary objection was taken by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents with regard to the maintainability of C. W. J. C. No.908 of 1991 on the ground that petitioner managing Committee was already superseded, therefore, it had no locus standi to question the validity of impugned order. 6. A preliminary objection was taken by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents with regard to the maintainability of C. W. J. C. No.908 of 1991 on the ground that petitioner managing Committee was already superseded, therefore, it had no locus standi to question the validity of impugned order. In my view, since other writ petition No.3361 of 1992, filed by raj Kishore Sharma, one of the members of the Society is being heard with the present writ-petition almost for similar relief, challenging inclusion of 452 new members, it will not be expedient in the interest of justice to dismiss the writ applications on such ground. 7. Before proceeding to adjudicate the controversies between the parties, it would be advisable to notice some of the facts of these cases. The respondent society was registered under the Bihar Cooperative society Act, 1935. The provisions for enrolment as members of this society are mentioned in the Bye laws. It shows that persons above the age of 18 years and residing or holding property in munger district and by profession gun mechanic may be eligible for membership. It appears from the facts of the case that 452 persons applied for enrolment before the Managing Committee. But the Secretary of the Society refused to receive applications. Therefore, the district Cooperative Officer, Munger, on being moved by such claimants, sent their applications to the Secretary of the Society on 31-3-1975. This time the managing Committee rejected the applications on the ground that they were not properly filled up according to the provisions of the Bihar Cooperative society Rules (hereinafter called the rule) and by-laws. Ultimately, again after proper rectification applications were filed. When the applications were not accepted the matter was brought before the District Cooperative Officer who forwarded them to the Secretary managing Committee. These applications were also received by the secretary on 8-5-1975. But as the decision of the Managing Committee was not comunicated to the applicants within 15 days the prescribed period, they were allowed to deposit their share money and admission fee as per the order of the District Cooperative officer. The said order of the District cooperative Officer was, however, challenged before the Deputy Registrar by the Society who set aside the same. 8. The said order of the District cooperative Officer was, however, challenged before the Deputy Registrar by the Society who set aside the same. 8. The applicants, who were aggrieved by the order of the Deputy registrar, moved the Registrar but he also refused to interfere on the sole gound that District Cooperative Officer should have dealt the matter under section 48 of the Act. The applicants moved this Court in C. W. J. C. No.865 of 1977 for quashing the order of the registrar which was summarily dismissed on 19-5-1977. It appears, thereafter, the applicants did not challenge that order, therefore, the matter rested there. 9. In the meantime, the Managing committee completed its term on 30-6-1979 and, therefore, as per Sec.14 of the Act, it became necessary to hold a meeting of the Society for the purpose of constitution of a new Managing committee, before 31-12-1979. Acordingly, notices were issued by the outgoing Managing Committee to the members for holding meeting on 18-12-1979. Since the Managing Committee had issued notices to the original 211 members only, and was not inclined to allow those 456 applicants, on 13-12-1979 an application was filed before the registrar, which was numbered as Dispute case No.100 of 1979, to adjudicate a dispute under Sec.48 of the act. Ultimately, by order dated 18-12-1979, the Additional Registrar stayed the Annual General Meeting of the managing Committee scheduled for 13-12-1979. The result was that in absence of an Annual General Meeting on 31-12-1979, the Managing Committee was superseded with effect from 1-1-1980. Therefore, the District Cooperative Officer was appointed Special Officer to manage the affairs of the Society. 10. The aforesaid actions of the authorities were challenged by the outgoing Managing Committee in C. W. J. C. No.66 of 1980, which was dismissed on 15-5-1980 with an observation that the managing Committee should in the first instance raise such question before the Additional Registrar, where Dispute Case No.100 of 1979 was already pending. Ultimately, the matter was carried to the Supreme Court being s. L. P. No.5477 of 1980 which was also dismissed. 11. It appears thereafter on 4-7-1980, the Minister Incharge cooperative, while exercising powers under section 65a of the Act, directed that only 211 members of the Society would participate in the meeting. In the meantime, the Additional Registrar also dismissed case No.100 of 1979 on 17-7-1980. 12. 11. It appears thereafter on 4-7-1980, the Minister Incharge cooperative, while exercising powers under section 65a of the Act, directed that only 211 members of the Society would participate in the meeting. In the meantime, the Additional Registrar also dismissed case No.100 of 1979 on 17-7-1980. 12. The said order was challenged before this Court in C. W. J. C. No.1841 of 1980. Ultimately, the order of the additional Registrar was set aside and the case was remanded before him for reconsideration. The said order of the high Court was also challenged before the Supreme Court but the appeal was dismissed on 12-7-1986. Thereafter, the additional Registrar reconsidered the matter in terms of the decision of this court and by order dated 11-1-1991, held that all the 452 applicants whose applications were sent to the District cooperative Officer, after rectification of the defects were validly enrolled as members and, therefore, entitled to notice for participation in the annual general meeting. Consequent to the said decision, as I have already noticed, different steps were taken by the authorities vide Annexures 11, 12 and 13 to CWJC No.3361 of 1992. 13. There is no dispute that the order of the Additional Registrar dated 11-1-1991 was on the basis of a direction of this Court in CWJC No.1841 of 1980. Therefore, there is no scope for the petitioners to question his jurisdiction. Similarly, the question regarding refiling of the applicants by those 452 persons for enrolment after removing defects also cannot be reopened at this stage. Because this is not in dispute that after rectification of the defects, applications were sent to the Secretary of the Managing Committee by the district Cooperative Officer but no decision was communicated to the applicants within a stipulated time of 15 days as required under rule 7. Therefore, the District Cooperative Officer had no option but to declare these applicants as members of the society. 14. Therefore, only question to my mind requires reconsideration is whether in view of nominal share capital of the society as Rs.20,000/- and having regard to the case of the outgoing managing committee that with respect to said amount all shares were distributed amongst 211 old members, these 452 new applicants can continue as members of the society even without any share. According to the managing committee 800 shares of Rs.25/- each were already sold to the old 211 members. According to the managing committee 800 shares of Rs.25/- each were already sold to the old 211 members. Therefore, in absence of any share, it was not proper for the Additional Registrar to declare those 452 persons as members of the society. 15. From the order of Additional registrar also, there appears no dispute that nominal capital of the society at the relevant time was only Rs.20,000/-. This also cannot be disputed that total capital share @ Rs, 25/- each will come to 800 shares. 16. The Additional Registrar has held that originally the Society had planned to enrol 800 members but at the relevant time only 211 members were enrolled. Therefore, still there was scope to enrol at least 589 members. This cannot be disputed that as per the requirements as prescribed under the "by-laws" or the rules unless shares are available no person can be enrolled as a member of the society. 17. It has been contended that the additional Registrar in fact has committed an error of record while holding that there was a provision for enrolment of 800 members. He also failed to appreciate that there is no such condition in the by-laws that for 800 shares 800 members are to be enrolled. That apart, it is always open to a member of the society to purchase more than one share. In fact bare reference to different materials which are already on record would show that total 800 shares were purchased by the old 211 members. 18. This cannot be disputed that the relevant provisions of the by-laws of the society, a copy of which is annexed with the counter-affidavit, would show that nominal capital of the society was Rs.20,000/- and if divided into 800 shares each share comes to a value of rs.25/- each to the subscribed by the members only. Clause 12 of the bye-laws also shows that face value of each share shall be Rs.25/- and no individual member can be allowed to hold more than 20 shares or 1/5th of the total capital whichever is less. The additional Registrar has not been able to find out whether the capital value of the society Was raised subsequently. 19. Clause 12 of the bye-laws also shows that face value of each share shall be Rs.25/- and no individual member can be allowed to hold more than 20 shares or 1/5th of the total capital whichever is less. The additional Registrar has not been able to find out whether the capital value of the society Was raised subsequently. 19. Apart from the provisions of the bye-laws and other facts which 1 have already noticed, an extract of the audit report for the year 1988-89, as well as balance sheet of Central cooperative Bank regarding details of share capitals, a copy of which is Annexure 16, was also referred in support of the submission that 800 shares were already purchased by 211 members. Hence, no share was available for new members. 20. In course of hearing of the case, we also perused copies of relevant documents referred to above as well as the by-laws of the society. In facf unless genuineness of these documents are verified by a competent authority on the basis of relevant papers or any other evidence, there will be no scope but to accept that all the 800 shares were distributed amongst the members of the society. 21. But on behalf of the 452 applicants, stand has been taken that concerned documents were manufactured at the instance of the members of the outgoing managing committee to defeat their claim. Reference in this regard has also been made to the copies of different petitions and documents filed before the authority from time to time. The Additional Registrar also while coming to a conclusion that still there was scope to enroll 589 members has failed to refer the relevant papers or any other evidence in support of such finding. This was also necessary for the additional. Registrar to examine whether in the changed circumstances, nominal capital share of the society was raised. If not raised subsequently whether in order to meet requirements of the new members any enhancement of nominal capital was necessary in terms of the rules or by-laws, as the case may be. It cannot be disputed that for adjudication of such allegations, one is required to investigate several facts, which definitely is not possible for this Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction. 22. It cannot be disputed that for adjudication of such allegations, one is required to investigate several facts, which definitely is not possible for this Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction. 22. Therefore, in these backgrounds, the finding of the Additional registiar that out of 800 members, only 211 were enrolled and still there was scope lor enrolment of 589 new members, requires reconsideration on the basis of relevant materials. It is, therefore, desirable that matter be remitted to the Registrar or Additional registiar, who may be competent to hear such matters for a fresh decision. Accordingly, I have no option but to quash the impugned order to the extent indicated above. 23. As the matter is remitted to the respondent authorities for reconsideration, it may not be necessary to interfere with other orders, which are impugned in CWJC No.3361 of 1992 and 5528 of 1994. Because admittedly after a fresh order by the Registrar or additional Registrar, the authorities are bound to suitably modify or recall such orders. Therefore, until and unless a fresh order is passed by the Registrar or the Additional Registrar, it would be in the interest of all the parties to maintain status quo as it exists today. 24. With the aforesaid direction to the concerned authorities to reconsider the matter, all the writ applications are thus disposed of. But in the circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs.