Judgment :- N.K. Jain, J. 1. This writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 17. 1999 made in Writ Petition No: 19736 of 1998. It is alleged that the petitioner is the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank and comes within item No: 3 of Rules 14 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Rules and operates within the area of Mamsapuram, Srivilliputhur Taluk whereas the third respondent also comes within the same class as item 6 and has confined its operation within Srivilliputhur. The third respondent has sought for permission from the respondents 1 and 2 for extension of its operation area. The Reserve Bank of India has permitted the third respondent to extend their area of operation covering 10 kilometres. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner and the third respondent fall in one category and without following Section 9(l)(d) and Section 11(3) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, which prohibit overlapping with the activities of another Society, an amendment has been introduced ignoring Section 11(3) of the Act. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed the writ petition. 2. Counter has been filed denying the allegations as alleged. It is submitted that though the petitioner and the third respondent fall under the same class, their activities are different. So, the question of considering overlapping and infringement of Section 9(1) (d) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act will not arise. 3. The learned single Judge, on consideration, dismissed the writ petition. Hence this writ appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner submits that petitioner had filed objection stating that the Branch should not be opened. There is also a letter written by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies to the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies stating that the approval will affect the petitioner and requested to keep the proposal in abeyance. But, despite that, without applying his mind, the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies has approved the amendment which is a clear violation. It is also submitted that the learned single Judge has unnecessarily gone into the merit and therefore, the approval of the amendment is liable to be set aside. 5. To this the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Additional Government Pleader submitted that though the appellant/petitioner and the third respondent are in same class in two different categories, yet they are distinct. 5. To this the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Additional Government Pleader submitted that though the appellant/petitioner and the third respondent are in same class in two different categories, yet they are distinct. In appellant/petitioner society, only farmers can become members, short term loans alone are sanctioned by the petitioner for buying pesticides and fertilizers and no banking activities like issuing of drafts and cheques or negotiable instruments are permissible. On the other hand, in the third respondent society, any one can become a member and drafts and other negotiable instruments can be issued. It is further submitted that after considering the circular of the Reserve Bank of India and the guidelines and the objections and with a view to give financial assistance, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has allowed/approved, after considering the entire material, which is within his competence. Therefore, the appellant/petitioner is not entitled for any relief. It is also submitted that the Reserve Bank of India has not sanctioned the amendment till date. It is also submitted that the appellant petitioner has not right to challenge the order though the Reserve Bank of India has not yet sanctioned. It is further submitted that the appellant made only objection that the Branch should not be opened and never made any specific objections as argued now. So, there was no opportunity to the respondents to rebut the contentions. The learned counsel further submitted that otherwise also there was sufficient material on record which had been considered by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The appellant has not filed the appeal within the stipulated time and has rushed to this court and the writ petition was rightly dismissed. In the rejoinder the appellant has submitted that their objections were taken by the respondents and hence, now they cannot agitate. 6. We have heard and perused the material on record and the relevant Sections. Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act deals with Registration. Section 9(d) provides that if the Registrar is satisfied that the area of operation of the proposed society does not overlap the area of operation of another registered society of the same class or category, save as permitted by the Registrar, he may register the society and its bye-laws. Section 9(d) provides that if the Registrar is satisfied that the area of operation of the proposed society does not overlap the area of operation of another registered society of the same class or category, save as permitted by the Registrar, he may register the society and its bye-laws. Section 11 of the Act deals with amendment of the bye-laws of a registered society shall be valid until the same has been registered under the Act. Sub-section (3) to Section 11 of the Act reads that if the Registrar is satisfied that an amendment of the bye-laws is not contrary to the provisions of the Act or the Rules or to the co-operative principles or to any other law applicable to the society, he may within such time as may be prescribed, register the amendment. 7. In the instant case, both the learned counsel have not raised the point at initial stage and are now raising. However, a perusal of the facts of the given case reveals that the Registrar has power to allow the amendment. What is to be seen is whether the Registrar had application of mind while allowing this amendment. A perusal of the document reveals that sufficient materials were available before the Registrar so as to pass orders regarding the amendment and as per the Provisions, if it is refused an opportunity is to be given to the other side. It also reveals that there is a provision of appeal under Section 152 of the Act. More so, the amendment was allowed in March, 1998 and no appeal has been filed in time when there is a provision of appeal to investigate the factual aspect. In view of this we find no error or illegality in the order of the learned single Judge so as to call for any interference. More so, the Reserve Bank of India, as stated, has not ultimately granted sanction of the opening of the Branch. Therefore, as stated, no relief as prayed for can be granted. The writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. The connected C.M.Ps. are also dismissed.