Judgment : TAPEN SEN, J. ( 1 ) PRAYER in this writ petition is for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of writ of certiorari for quashing Annexure-2 (order dated 4-9-2001) issued by respondent No. 3 (Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Hazaribagh Circle, Hazaribagh) purporting to be under the direction of the respondent No. 2 (Registrar), whereby and whereunder, the post of treasurer has been ordered to be filled up by lottery. ( 2 ) FURTHER prayer is for issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ of or in the nature of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents not to give effect to the said impugned order and further, to allow the filling up of the post of a Treasurer by co-option in terms of the order of the respondent No. 4 (Joint Registrar ). ( 3 ) THE facts pleaded in the instant case is that in terms of the provision contained in the Bihar Co-operative Societies Rules, 1959 election for different posts including the post of a treasurer was held on 24-12-2000 in which one Sri Pramod (respondent No. 5) and one Sri Basant Kumar Singh (respondent No. 6) got equal votes of 129 each. Consequently the post of treasurer could not be declared. ( 4 ) THE petitioner has stated that thereafter the candidates concerned approached the authorities as also this Honble Court vide CWJC No. 2630/2001. By an order dated 26-6-2001 (Annexure-A appended with the counter affidavit of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3) and Honble single Judge of this Court gave liberty to the petitioners of that case to file a joint petition before the respondent No. 2 (Registrar) to decide the claim and pass a reasoned order within one month from the date of receipt of such petition. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to petitioner, the matter was then finally decided by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Respondent No. 4) who by his order passed in Election Case No. 4/2001-2002 dt. 31-7-2001 decided that the post of treasurer shall be filled up on the basis of co-option. ( 6 ) THE petitioner has stated that both the candidates had agreed before the respondent No. 4 that they would be agreeable to the procedure of co-option and it was on that basis that the Joint Registrar passed the order on 31-7-2001. 31-7-2001 decided that the post of treasurer shall be filled up on the basis of co-option. ( 6 ) THE petitioner has stated that both the candidates had agreed before the respondent No. 4 that they would be agreeable to the procedure of co-option and it was on that basis that the Joint Registrar passed the order on 31-7-2001. ( 7 ) THE petitioner states that in spite of the order dated 31-7-2001, the respondent No. 2 (Registrar) all of a sudden and without there having been any appeal preferred against the order dated 31-7-2001, passed an order on 4-9-2001 by Annexure-2 (impugned order), whereby and whereunder, he directed the matter to be decided by holding a lottery on 11-9-2001 as per the provisions laid down under Rule 21-U (5) of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Rules, 1959. ( 8 ) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 4-9-2001 as according to it, the said order having been passed by the Assistant Registrar amounts to passing an order suo motu without there being any appeal whereas according to it, the order dated 31-7-2001 is an order which was passed pursuant to the direction of this Court and against which no appeal has been filed. ( 9 ) THE petitioner has stated that it also filed a representation vide Annexure-3 before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi but no action has been taken till date. According to petitioner, the system of electing the post of treasurer by lottery is illegal as according to it, there is no provision for taking a decision by lottery when two persons have got equal votes. According to petitioner, therefore, the order dated 4-9-2001 is contrary to the provision of the law. ( 10 ) ). A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (i. e. Registrar and Assistant Registrar ). In the said counter affidavit at para 12 they have stated that both the candidates had filed W. P. (C) No. 2630/2001 which was heard on 26-6-2001 and order was passed directing the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Hazaribagh to decide the claim and pass a reasoned order within one month. That order was again modified on 24-7-2001 in which it was directed that the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi was to decide the claim and pass a reasoned order. That order was again modified on 24-7-2001 in which it was directed that the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi was to decide the claim and pass a reasoned order. At para 13 of the said counter affidavit it has been stated that pursuant to the order passed by the Honble High Court, an order was passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi directing to declare the results on the basis of the provision of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Rules, 1959. ( 11 ) THE respondents Nos. 5 and 6 have also filed a counter affidavit wherein they have stated that pursuant to the order dated 4-9-2001 which was passed in terms of the order of the Registrar (respondent No. 2) dated 3-9-2001 lottery was held and he (respondent No. 5) was elected on the post of treasurer on 11-9-2001. They have also stated that as per co-option one Narayan Singh was co-opted but he has not come forward to challenge the order dated 11-9-2001 (Annexure-3 appended to the counter affidavit of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 ). ( 12 ) IN this case the petitioner has challenged the order dated 4-9-2001 by which a direction was given to declare the results on the basis of lottery. According to them it is contrary to the order dated 31-7-2001 passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh (Annexure-1) by which it was ordered that the matter be decided by co-option. In another words, the petitioner supports co-option and challenges the lottery. ( 13 ) THE question that falls for consideration is as to whether the order dated 4-9-2001 is a legal and valid order or whether the other order dated 31-7-2001 is legal and valid? ( 14 ) IN order to answer the aforesaid questions, it has to be seen as to (a) whether the order dated 4-9-2001 was passed pursuant to the order of this Court and (b) whether the provision for holding lottery, in the facts and circumstances of this case, was a proper order? ( 15 ) FROM a perusal of the order dated 26-6-2001 passed in W. P. (C) No. 2630/2001 (Annexure-C appended to the supplementary counter-affidavit of respondent Nos. 5 and 6) it is apparent that the Honble single Judge passed an order directing the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Hazaribagh to decide the claim. ( 15 ) FROM a perusal of the order dated 26-6-2001 passed in W. P. (C) No. 2630/2001 (Annexure-C appended to the supplementary counter-affidavit of respondent Nos. 5 and 6) it is apparent that the Honble single Judge passed an order directing the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Hazaribagh to decide the claim. By a subsequent order dated 24-7-2001 (Annexure-D) appended to the same counter affidavit the order was modified and the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi was directed to decide the claim. ( 16 ) THEREAFTER by order dated 3-9-2001 (Annexure-B appended to the counter affidavit of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3), Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi passed an order directing the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Hazaribagh to decide the matter on the basis of lottery. Pursuant thereto the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Hazaribagh passed order on 4-9-2001 (impugned Annexure-2), whereby and whereunder, he directed that the lottery would be held on 11-9-2001. ( 17 ) THUS, the order dated 4-9-2001 having been passed pursuant to the order of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi on 3-9-2001which in turn has been passed pursuant to the order of this Court must be held to be a proper order having been passed in due compliance of the specific direction of this Court passed in W. P. (C) No. 2630/2001. It is, therefore, held that the order dated 4-9-2001 is a legal, proper and valid order. ( 18 ) THE next question is as to whether the order directing declaration of the results by lottery, in the facts and circumstances of this case, is proper or not. In this context I refer Rule 21-P (2) of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Rules, 1959 and Rule 21-U (5) of the said Rule. Rule 21-P (2) reads as follows :-" (2) If no valid nominations are received for any one more seats, such seat shall be filled by co-option from amongst the members of the society. " rule 21-U (5) reads as follows :- " (5) In the event of equality of votes, the matter shall be decided by draw of lots by Election Officer. " ( 19 ) THE bone of contention in this case is that Sri Pramod (Respondent No. 5) and Sri Basant Kumar Singh (Respondent No. 6) got equal votes in the election held on 24-12-2000 and the votes polled by them were 129 each. " ( 19 ) THE bone of contention in this case is that Sri Pramod (Respondent No. 5) and Sri Basant Kumar Singh (Respondent No. 6) got equal votes in the election held on 24-12-2000 and the votes polled by them were 129 each. This is not a case where there was no valid nomination. The process of co-option is provided when there is no valid nomination as laid down under Rule 21-P (2) of the said Rules. The process of deciding the matter by draw of lots is specifically providedin the event of equality of votes, as provided under Rule 21-U (5 ). ( 20 ) IN that view of the matter, and in the facts and circumstances of this case, when there was equality of votes, the correct procedure was to decide the matter by draw of lots which has been done by reason of the impugned order. ( 21 ) IN view of what has been stated above, the order dated 4-9-2001 is again held to be proper and valid order. Consequently, this writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .