ORDER R.S. Garg, J. By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the correctness, propriety and validity of the Order dated 27-4-1996 (Annexure-10). Brief Facts necessary for disposal of the petition are that the petitioner Akhil Chandra Mistri claiming to be a President of newly constituted Kisan Fisheries Co-operative Society PV 19 District Bastar moved an application to the Deputy Registrar for registration of the Society. With the application certain certificates issued by Gram Panchayat and Janpad Panchayat were also filed. Before the steps could be taken for registration of the Society Gram Panchayat Kankar which has originally issued a certificate in favour of the petitioner lodged a caveat-cum-objection. The matter was again taken up for hearing on 20-11-1995. Janpad Adhyaksh and the other objectors were present before the Deputy Registrar. The Deputy Registrar taking resort to proviso to sub-section (1) of section 9 of M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') observed that the petitioner be advised to call for a meeting of all the villagers of different villages and the Janpad Adhyaksh should look into the matter. On 27-4-1996 the Deputy Registrar issued a letter to Co-operative Extension Officer with a copy to the present petitioner asking the Co-operative Extension Officer that the proposal made by the petitioner society be again examined and if the proposal is found to be in accordance with law, the same be submitted to the Deputy Registrar. According to the petitioner, when an application for registration of the Society is made then the Registrar or delegatee of his power is bound to take a decision within ninety days from the date of receipt of the application of registration of the society, and, if the procedure in accordance with sub-section (3) of section 9 is not taken then the said society with its bye-laws shall be deemed to be registered. Submission of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that as no final orders were passed on his application for registration and from the letter dated 27-4-1996 (Annexure-10) a whisper can be heard that the application was pending, therefore, this Court should intervene and give a declaration in favour of the petitioner that it stands registered by application of deeming fiction. The petitioner has also stated that during the pendency of the petitioner's application the respondent No. 5 and respondent No. 6 were illegally registered therefore the registration deserves to be quashed. It is submitted that according to section 6 of the Act persons of a particular village can constitute a society but from the documents submitted by the respondent No. 5 it would clearly appear that two of the founder members were residents of Village PV 26. According to him, certificate issued by the Sarpanch PV 26 would clearly establish that the said two founder members were not residents of PV 19. For respondent No. 6 it is contended that the respondent No. 6 has been illegally registered though to cater the need of the particular area, the present petitioner had already submitted his application for registration. The State through respondents Nos. 1 and 8, in its return, have submitted that petitioner's application was finally decided on 20-11-1995 (Annexure -R/4) and as such there is no scope for applying the deeming fiction. For Annexure-10, it is contended that the co-operative extension officer was simply asked to make another proposal but Annexure-10 cannot be read to mean that the first application filed by the petitioner was kept pending. It is also submitted by the respondents Nos. 1 and 8 that according to section 77(1)(i) if any person is aggrieved by any order passed under the Act or the Rules then he can challenge the correctness, validity and propriety of the order by filing an appeal and as an alternative forum is available to the petitioner this Court should not interfere. I have heard the parties at length. So far as the registration of respondents Nos. 5 and 6 is concerned, in the opinion of this Court this Court should not interfere in view of section 77 of the Act. According to section 77, except where it is otherwise provided an appeal shall lie from every original order under the Act or the Rules made thereunder etc. In this petition, it would not be proper for this Court to hold a fact finding enquiry. The petitioner's contention that the application for registration submitted by the respondent No. 5 was bad as it contained false particulars cannot be considered in these proceedings. In this petition, it would not be proper for this Court to hold a fact finding enquiry. The petitioner's contention that the application for registration submitted by the respondent No. 5 was bad as it contained false particulars cannot be considered in these proceedings. this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 and/or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would ordinarily not enter into questions of disputed fact. Similarly, whether respondent No. 6 has been illegally registered or not would again depend upon a fact finding enquiry. Whether the petitioner's application for registration was to cater the need of a particular area or not and whether the respondent No. 6 has been given registration for the very same area for which the petitioner had applied for registration cannot be decided without making any enquiry. That challenge in the opinion of this Court must be rejected. The contention of the respondents that petitioner's application was rejected on 20-11-1995 even if is accepted to be correct this Court looking to the nature of the order is required to intervene in the matter. Section 2(z) of the Act says that 'Society' means a co-operative society registered or deemed to be registered under the Act. Section 9 of the Act reads as under:-- (i) if the Registrar is satisfied that a society has complied with the provisions of this Act and the rules and that its proposed bye- laws are not contrary to this Act or the rules, he may register the society and its bye-laws with such modifications as he may consider necessary: Provided that no society shall be registered, if in the opinion of the Registrar, it is likely to be economically unsound or is likely to have an adverse effect upon any other society. (ii) Where the Registrar refuses to register a society or its bye-laws he shall communicate the order of refusal together with reasons therefor to the first signatory to the application. (ii) Where the Registrar refuses to register a society or its bye-laws he shall communicate the order of refusal together with reasons therefor to the first signatory to the application. (iii) The Registrar shall take a decision within ninety days from the date of receipt of an application for registration of a society: Provided that where there is a failure on the part of the Registrar to dispose of such application within the period aforesaid the Registrar shall within the period of fifteen days from the date of expiration of that period, refer the application to the next higher Officer and where the Registrar himself is the registering officer to the State Government, who or which, as the case may be, shall dispose of the application within two months from the date of its receipt and on the failure of such higher Officer or State Government, as the case may be, to dispose of the application within that period, the society and its bye-laws shall be deemed to have been registered. (iv) The Registrar shall maintain register of societies registered or deemed to be registered under this Act." According to sub-section (1) of section 9, on being satisfied the Registrar ordinarily would register a society because that would be the ordinary rule. The Registrar is required to satisfy himself that the Society has complied with the provisions of the Act and the rules and has also to see that its proposed bye-laws are not contrary to the Act or the rules. If the Registrar/registering authority comes to the conclusion that the bye-laws require a modification, to be in accordance with the Act or Rules, he may ask for modification of the bye-laws. The proviso appended to sub-section (1) of section 9 provides that no society shall be registered, if in the opinion of the Registrar, it is likely to be economically unsound or is likely to have an adverse effect upon any other society. For registration the Registrar has to see whether the society has complied with the provisions of the Act and Rules and its proposed bye-laws are in accordance with law, but for rejection it has to record a finding that the proposed society is likely to be economically unsound or is likely to have an adverse effect upon any other society. For registration the Registrar has to see whether the society has complied with the provisions of the Act and Rules and its proposed bye-laws are in accordance with law, but for rejection it has to record a finding that the proposed society is likely to be economically unsound or is likely to have an adverse effect upon any other society. The word 'society" used in the proviso in fact means a registered society, registered under the Act. The order Annexure -R/4 records that the Panchayat Hanker and the Janpad Adhyaksh have withdrawn their certificate and have also withdrawn their recommendations. The complaints were made by other parties also but none of them ever said that the society was likely to be economically unsound or was likely to have an adverse effect upon any other existing society. The objections simply said that the other villagers were likely to propose a co-operative society to cater and serve their needs. If the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 9 is read in its true perspective it would show that the Registrar can reject the application where he is satisfied that the registration of the society is likely to have an adverse effect upon any other existing registered co-operative society. The order dated 20-11-1995 does nowhere record that the registration of the petitioner society was likely to have an adverse effect upon any other existing registered co-operative society. The order simply says that as there was likelihood of registration of other society it was deemed desirable that a meeting of the village people be held under the auspices of the Janpad Adhyaksh. The order nowhere says that for what particular reasons the society could not be registered. If order dated 20-11-1995 is treated to be a final order for all practical purposes, it would not meet the requirement of law. From a perusal of the order Annexure-R/4 it would clearly appear that the order is patently illegal and suffers with latent defect I am required to explicit all what is implicit in section 9 because this Court is of the opinion that rejection of the application is patently illegal and when the illegality floats on the surface this Court cannot close its eyes only on the ground of the alternative remedy. The order dated 20-11-1995 passed by the Deputy Registrar deserves to and is accordingly quashed. The order dated 20-11-1995 passed by the Deputy Registrar deserves to and is accordingly quashed. The Deputy Registrar is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner for its registration. It is however made clear that registration of any other society after submission of the petitioners application for registration would not come in the way of the petitioner. The Deputy Registrar is forewarned that he shall not reject the petitioner's application simply on the ground that after rejection of the petitioner's application respondent No. 5 and respondent No. 6 have come in existence. It is made clear that the petitioner's application is required to be considered on the date when it was submitted. It is also brought to the notice of the Deputy Registrar that on the date when the petitioner had submitted his application, there was no other existing registered co-operative society. If the Registrar comes to the conclusion that the proposed society has complied with the provisions of the Act and the rules and that its proposed bye-laws are not contrary to the Act or the rules he shall register the society keeping in mind as to whether the registration of the proposed society is likely to be economically unsound or not or would have an adverse effect upon any other existing registered co-operative society or not on the date when the petitioner had submitted his application. The petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to cost. Final Result : Allowed