CHIDANANDA ULLAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS matter was listed yesterday in preliminary hearing 'b' Group. I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri B. Sreenivasa Gowda at length. As the matter could not be listed today for want of time, by consent of the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned additional Government Advocate Sri M. N. Ramanjaneya Gowda, the matter had been taken up for final disposal this day without the matter being listed. ( 2 ) THE learned Additional Government Advocate had addressed his side of argument this day. ( 3 ) THE petitioner-Society in filing the instant writ petition had prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the certificate of registration of the respondent 5-Society dated 27-6-1998 issued by the respondent 3-As-sistant registrar of Co-operative Societies and further for a direction to the said co-operative authority not to permit the respondent 5-Society to function. ( 4 ) THE main grievance of the petitioner-Society in filing the instant writ petition was that the area of operation of the petitioner though extended to Thayakanahalli Village in Kudligi Taluk, Bellary District, the respondent 3 later had registered the respondent 5-Society having jurisdiction also on the said village Thayakanahalli Village along with 3 other villages, of course on the said 3 villages petitioner-Society had no jurisdiction in the matter of operation. ( 5 ) THE petitioner herein is represented by Sri B. Sreenivasa Gowda, whereas the respondent 1-State, respondent 2-Deputy Registrar of Cooperative societies and the respondent 3-Assistant Registrar of Co-operative societies are represented by the learned Additional Government advocate Sri M. N. Ramanjaneya Gowda. The respondent 4-a financing agency of the petitioner as well as the respondent 5-Society having been served with the notices had remained absent before Court. ( 6 ) SRI Sreenivasa Gowda had taken me through the facts of the case and further the grounds urged in the petition. The respondent 4-a financing agency of the petitioner as well as the respondent 5-Society having been served with the notices had remained absent before Court. ( 6 ) SRI Sreenivasa Gowda had taken me through the facts of the case and further the grounds urged in the petition. It was argued by him that the respondent 3 would not have registered the respondent 5-Society by issuing certificate of registration on 27-6-1998, copy as at Annexure-C to writ petition, particularly when the area of operation of the petitioner-Society registered much earlier in the month of November 1997, was also included with Thayakanahalli Village in its area of operation and furthermore in registration of the respondent 5-Society, the respondent 3 had also registered the Society of the respondent 5 much later as the petitioner-Society was registered as early as on 12-11-1997. It was also argued by him that, when the respondent 5 had approached the respondent 3 for the purpose of registration of the Society, the respondent 3 would have as well heard the petitioner-Society by issuing necessary notices thereto as there would not have been duplication in the matter of area of operation of the petitioner-Society as well as the respondent 5-Society over Thayakanahalli Village. While drawing my attention to rule 5 of the Co-operative Societies Rules, it was pointed out by Sri sreenivasa Gowda that at the point of time of the registration of the bye-law, the area of operation had to be set out therein and without that being done by any society, the registering authority will not register a society. He had also cited before me the Division Bench ruling of this court in Kundawada Service Co-operative Society v State of Karnataka, wherein the Division Bench of this Court held that while granting approval by a co-operative authority in the matter of amendment of bye-law of a society, the co-operative authority shall not amend the bye-law of the society when the same is likely to affect another society in the matter of area of operation and further that the Authority shall not effect such an amendment without hearing the affected society in observing the principles of natural justice. Therefore, Sri Sreenivasa gowda prayed that the prayer sought for in the writ petition be granted. Therefore, Sri Sreenivasa gowda prayed that the prayer sought for in the writ petition be granted. ( 7 ) THE learned Additional Government Advocate on the other side submitted that there is no prohibition under the provisions of the Act for the registration of a second society having jurisdiction in part of the area of operation of the another society. While drawing my attention to the para 3 of the objection statement filed by him, it was also argued by the learned Additional Government Advocate that there were 13,000 sheep in the area of operation of the respondent 5-Society that included thayakanahalli Village and that the members of Thayakanahalli Village and other 3 villagers had approached the respondent 3 for the purpose of registration of their societies and some of the villagers of thayakanahalli Society had floated in the respondent 5-Society after assuring the respondent 3-Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies that there would be no dual membership one in the petitioner-Society and another in the respondent 5-Society and therefore, he submitted that the respondent 3-Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies in no way committed any error in issuance of registration certificate at Annexure-C to writ petition to the respondent 5-Society having jurisdiction in the disputed village, Thayakanahalli. ( 8 ) WHILE adverting to the Division Bench ruling of this Court cited by sri Sreenivasa Gowda, the learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the set of facts in the case in hand and the set of facts in the reported case are totally different. That, he submitted in view of the fact that in the reported case, the Authority had given approval for the amendment of the bye-law by inclusion of part of the area of operation of the affected society whereas in the instant case in hand, the respondent 3-Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies had registered the respondent 5 as a second society in the area but by fixing the area of operation in 3 other villages and further in the disputed Village thayakanahalli, that too after being assured that there would not be dual membership by any member. ( 9 ) THEREFORE, Sri Ramanjaneya Gowda submitted that the instant writ petition does not merit any consideration. ( 9 ) THEREFORE, Sri Ramanjaneya Gowda submitted that the instant writ petition does not merit any consideration. ( 10 ) WHATEVER may be the circumstances, one thing is clear that in registering the respondent 5-Society by issuance of a certificate dated 27-6-1998, copy as at Annexure-C to writ petition, the respondent 3-As- astant Registrar of Co-operative Societies had also extended the area of jurisdiction to the respondent 5-Society in Thayakanahalli Village too, on matter that the petitioner-Society was earlier issued with a registration certificate in the month of November 1997 Having jurisdiction in the and disputed village and 15 other villages. From the said set of facts, it in dear that the respondent 3-Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Socity had created jurisdiction in Thayakanahalli Village both in the peti-tioner-Society as well as in the respondent No. 5-Society. I don't think that the respondent 3 was right in doing that for, under Rule 5 of the co-operative Rules, the bye-law of a society had to be registered also by setting out the area of operation specifically. On simple reading of the rule 5 of the Co-operative Rules, it is clear therefrom that the area of operation without being set out in the bye-law, the registering authority as that of the respondent 3 cannot register a society. ( 11 ) IN para 3 of the objection statement filed by the learned Additional government Advocate for and on behalf of the respondents,1 to 3 it is stated as hereunder:"3. It is submitted that, on 18-10-1997, at the time of registration of the petitioner-Society, the respondent 5-Society had also submitted an application for its registration. Since the petitioner-Society had already been registered on 17-11-1997, the question of dual membership arises only if the respondent 5-Society is also registered and hence, the registration of the respondent 5-Society was refused. It is submitted that, thereafter, certain interested persons of Thayakanahalli Village, through their Chief promoter, on 1-5-1998, again resolved to have their own Society and submitted the said resolution copy with an undertaking that all measures have been taken to prevent dual membership of the petitioner-Society and the respondent 5-Society and sought for registration of the respondent 5-Society. It is submitted that, thereafter, certain interested persons of Thayakanahalli Village, through their Chief promoter, on 1-5-1998, again resolved to have their own Society and submitted the said resolution copy with an undertaking that all measures have been taken to prevent dual membership of the petitioner-Society and the respondent 5-Society and sought for registration of the respondent 5-Society. The headquarters of the respondent 5-Society is Thayakanahalli village and only a few persons of the said village are members of the petitioner-Society and since the respondent 5-Society assured that measures have been taken to prevent dual membership, the respondent 5-Society was registered. Further, it is pertinent to submit herein that the villages of the area of operation coming within the jurisdiction of the respondent 5-Society are thayakanahalli, Valase, Karnarhatti and Megalkarnarhatti and the total strength of the sheep of the said villages is about 13,000. It is further submitted that the local Member of the Legislative assembly had also recommended for registration of the respondent 5-Society. Taking into consideration the strength of the sheep, assurance given by the respondent 5-Society to avoid dual membership and the recommendation of the local member of the Legislative Assembly as also the economic upliftment of the members of the respondent 5-Society, the chief promoter of the respondent 5-Society was permitted to collect the share amounts. After considering the interest shown by the chief promoter in collecting the share amounts from the members and also the factors narrated above, the respondent 5-Society was registered on 27-6-1998". ( 12 ) THE learned Additional Government Advocate had vehemently argued that there is no prohibition for a second society being registered with overlapping in the matter of area of operation. I don't think that the said argument of the learned Additional Government Advocate can be accepted by me in view of proviso below Section 4 of the Co-operative societies Act, wherein it is provided thereunder that no Co-operative society shall be registered if it is likely to be economically unsound or the registration of it may adversely affect on the development of the co-operative movement. ( 13 ) IN this context, I feel it appropriate to quote Section 4 of the Act. The same reads as hereunder:"4. ( 13 ) IN this context, I feel it appropriate to quote Section 4 of the Act. The same reads as hereunder:"4. Societies which may be registered: subject to the provisions of this Act, a Co-operative Society which has its objects the promotions of the economic interests or general welfare of its members, or of the public, in accordance with co-operative principles, or a co-operative society established with the object of facilitating the operations of such a society, may be registered under this Act: provided that no co-operative society shall be registered if it is likely to be economically unsound, or the registration of which may have an adverse effect on development of the co-operative movement". ( 14 ) IF the petitioner-Society was having the jurisdiction over thayakanahalli Village and the respondent 3-Assistant Registrar in registration of the respondent 5-Society had also extended the jurisdiction in that village, in my considered view, it could not be said that, that would not adversely affect the interest of the petitioner-Society and " further that, that would serve the cause of the co-operative movement in the State. Therefore, it appears to me that the respondent 3-Assistant registrar would not have registered the society of the respondent 5 to have the jurisdiction in Thayakanahalli Village much less without giving an opportunity to the petitioner-Society of being heard in the matter of conferring the jurisdiction over the village in question in the respondent 5, when the petitioner-Society had its jurisdiction thereon earlier. ( 15 ) NOW the point is whether the certificate issued by the respondent 3-Assistant Registrar to the respondent 5, copy as at Annexure-C to writ petition is liable to be quashed or not? ( 16 ) I have carefully applied my mind in this regard. Upon doing that mental exercise, I am of the view that on that ground the certificate of the respondent 5-Society need not be quashed and the respondent 5 be closed down; ultimately what the petitioner-Society prayed for in filing the instant petition is to divest the respondent 5-Society from having jurisdiction over Thayakanahalli Village in the matter of area of operation. I think that can as well be worked out by giving liberty to the respondent 3-Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society to recourse to section 12 (5) and Section 12 (6) of the Co-operative Societies Act to get the! I think that can as well be worked out by giving liberty to the respondent 3-Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society to recourse to section 12 (5) and Section 12 (6) of the Co-operative Societies Act to get the! bye-law of the respondent 5-Society amended to exclude the jurisdiction of the respondent 5 in Thaykanahalli Village. Such a course I suggest to keep going both the petitioner-Society as well as the respondent 5-Society and further in the interest of the Co-operative movement in the State and further to work out equities between the parties before the Court. ( 17 ) AT this stage, the learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that such a recourse can as well be as against the petitioner-Society too, by the respondent 3-Assistant Registrar of Co-operative societies, for, according to him, the petitioner-Society has got jurisdiction over 16 villages when the respondent 5-Society has got only jurisdiction over 4 villages including over the disputed Village Thayakanahalli. ( 18 ) I feel it appropriate to quote here what the Division Bench of this court held in the case in Bhatkal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited, bhatkal and Others v State of Karnataka and Another, aptly relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-Society Sri Sreenivasa gowda. The same reads as hereunder:"held, petitioner-Society was adversely affected by reason of the amended bye-law of Farmers Service Co-operative. A society cannot extend its area of operations to an area of a different society likely to be affected by making a bye-law and obtain approval from the concerned authorities without reference whatsoever to the society, the area of which is taken over under the bye-law. The granting of approval by the concerned authorities for such amended bye-law of a society without affording an opportunity to the society likely to be affected by such amendment would be against the principles of natural justice". ( 19 ) IN this context, I feel it appropriate also to quote what was held later, also by the Division Bench of this Court in yet another case in bhatkal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited, supra, of course the set of facts in the above case relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-Society and the set of facts in instant case reported are similar. The Division Bench in the case had held as hereunder:"it is necessary for us to lay down that the situation in rural India in particular requires to be taken cognizance of insofar as several of the business needs of those regions are catered to by Co-operative units. Apart from rendering service, however, these units have also become power centres with various affiliations and have therefore become vulnerable to political control and serious infighting. Instances are many where the Courts have come across situation wherein due to unhealthy infighting, such Co-operative units have been virtually destroyed. It is therefore very essential that the supervisory authorities exercise due and adequate control over all such situations. More importantly, the economic viability and the desirability of permitting either a new society or an existing society requires to be carefully, correctly and dispassionately assessed on the basis of reliable data. It is. true that no area is to be treated as the personal fiefdom of any particular existing unit but the consequences of permitting others to enter the area re-quire very careful evaluation, particularly in a situation where it may lead to cut-throat competition or where it may result in virtual collapse or destruction of the existing society. These aspects of the matter cannot be assessed by the Minister in a vacuum. Where the existing societies have their area of operation defined, they certainly have a say in the matter of permitting the other competitors though they may not in given instances be able to enforce any such prohibition. Unless the pre-existing societies are heard, the Registrar himself will not be able to assess the possible damage or destruction and to this extent, therefore, the appellants were justified in their plea that the Joint Registrar was in error in having sanctioned the amendment of the bye-law without notice to them. To this extent again the revisional authority was correct in holding that they must be given a hearing". To this extent again the revisional authority was correct in holding that they must be given a hearing". ( 20 ) WHATEVER may be the circumstances, as pointed out by me, as above, the respondent 3-Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies would not have created jurisdiction in the matter of area of operation in thayakanahalli Village both in the petitioner-Society as well as in the respondent 5-Society and that wrong the respondent 3-Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies did in granting certificate of registration to the respondent 5 in the facts and circumstances of the case and as such that wrong has to be corrected at the first instance by entertaining the instant writ petition. That I say in following the above two Division bench ruling of this Court referred to above, for in my considered view the ratio of both the decisions is equally applicable to the case in hand. Ultimately what was challenged by the petitioner-Society in the instant writ petition in substance was propriety in the matter of conferring jurisdiction by a Co-operative Society to the second Society when an earlier Society was already conferred with such a jurisdiction by that authority. ( 21 ) IN that view of the matter, I pass the following: the respondent 3-Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies is hereby directed to get the bye-law of the respondent 5-Society amended to delete the area of operation to the respondent 5-Society in thayakanahalli Village by passing appropriate orders, one under Section 12 (5) of the Co-operative Societies Act and another under Section 12 (6) of the Co-operative Societies Act in the matter of amendment of the bye-law of the respondent 5. That he may do in consonance with the said provisions of law and further by giving sufficient time of 8 weeks to the respondent 5-Society. It is also added here that this will not come in the way of the respondent 3-Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies to get the area of operation of the petitioner-Society in Thayakanahalli Village deleted at a later date in the area of operation of the respondent 5 but that has to be done by him only after affording the petitioner-Society an opportunity of being heard thereon and not otherwise. The writ petition, therefore, succeeds in part and accordingly stands allowed in part in the above terms. The writ petition, therefore, succeeds in part and accordingly stands allowed in part in the above terms. In peculiar facts and circumstances, i don't propose to award cost in the writ petition. --- *** --- .