Judgment R.M.Prasad, J. 1. In this writ petition, the prayer is for dissolution of Rampur Maheshpur Matsyajivi Swawlambi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. (respondent No. 4) in terms of Section 44 of the Bihar Self -upporting Co-operative Societies, 1996. 2. The petitioner claims to be a registered Society in accordance with the provisions of Bihar Self-Supporting Co-operative Societies Act, 1996 bearing registration No. BR-060301 F.M. 0498. It is alleged that respondent No. 4, Society, has been registered within the area of operation of the petitioners Society bearing the same registration number but on a different date, i.e., 21-12-1998 and it has not functioned. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the provision relating to dissolution of such Society is provided under Sec. 44 of the said Act and the. Registrar or the interested person after giving notice to the proposed application can apply to the Tribunal for an order dissolving such Co-operation Society, as the Tribunal is not functioning. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the remedy only lies before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The dispute appears to be with respect to existence of Respondent No. 4. 3. There may be some substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner but this Court falls to appreciate as to why the State Government has not discharged the statutory duty for constituting the Co-operative Tribunal under Sec. 39 of the said 1996 Act which provides that "subject to such Rules as may be prescribed the State Government shall, by a notification published in the official Gazette, constitute as many Co-operative Tribunal as may be necessary, for such area or areas as may be specified in the notification, consisting of one or more members to exercise all the powers and performed all the functions conferred by or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force upon such Tribunals. The State Legislature with due respect has rightly thought in their wisdom also that for resolving such dispute the appropriate authority is the Tribunal and thus, vested power in the State Government to frame Rules and create Tribunal. 4. The State Legislature with due respect has rightly thought in their wisdom also that for resolving such dispute the appropriate authority is the Tribunal and thus, vested power in the State Government to frame Rules and create Tribunal. 4. Having regard to the fact that the State Government, has failed to discharge their duty cast under 1996 Act now for almost five years, this Court considers it expedient to dispose of the writ petition with the direction to the State Government to frame Rules and constitute appropriate number of Co-operative Tribunals as may be necessary in terms of the provisions contained in Sec. 39 of the Act within two months. 5. The writ petition is thus disposed of with the direction that if no such Tribunal is constituted within the said time the petitioner will be at liberty to file a fresh writ petition in this Court. 6. As prayed by the learned Counsel for the State, let a copy of this order be supplied to him for its strict compliance.