( 1 ) THE petitioner, claims to be a house building Co-operative Society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1989. In view of the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, the petitioner filed necessary application for registration under the said Act, and it is the case of the petitioner that, the said application filed by it was neither considered nor disposed of. ( 2 ) THE petitioner herein has sought for a direction, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to register the petitioner under the Karnataka Souharda Act, 1997 and issue the necessary Registration Certificate, from the date of the application. Further, assailing the correctness of the impugned communication/order dated 15thnovember 2002 bearing No. RSR. SOU. KA. 45. YMA. 1998-99, vide Annexure H, issued by the second respondent, the petitioner has presented the instant writ petition. ( 3 ) THE grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, as per the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997 (hereinafter called as the Souharda Act), the petitioner society has passed a resolution for converting the said Housing Souhardha Sahakara Niyamita into Souharda and to register the said housing society under the Souhards Act. After passing the resolution, they have filed the application along with necessary documents seeking conversion into souharda on 12thnovember 2001. But, as per the said Act, the petitioner is supposed to file the application along with necessary documents with prescribed fee of Rs. 5,000/- through challan and remit the amount in the Bank. It is the case of the petitioner that, they have repeatedly requested the authorities to issue the challan to enable them to pay the amount in the Bank. When the authorities have failed to consider the request of the petitioner, a reminder has been sent and in spite of that the authorities have not acted. Hence he petitioner was constrained to issue a legal notice to the register of Co-operative Societies and was called upon to issue the Registration Certificate to the petitioner society within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Thereafter, in spite of the legal notice also, the respondent has not sent any reply. Once again, the petitioner has sent a letter dated 30thseptember 2002 along with a demand draft for a sum of Rs. Thereafter, in spite of the legal notice also, the respondent has not sent any reply. Once again, the petitioner has sent a letter dated 30thseptember 2002 along with a demand draft for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- drawn in favour of the second respondent, requesting the authority to accept the said demand draft and issue the Registration Certificate, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by way of filing the writ petition. However, during the pendency of the said writ petition, the second respondent has issued the endorsement dated 15thnovember 2002, returning the demand draft sent by the petitioner along with his letter dated 30thseptember 2002, on the ground that the matter is pending consideration for further amendment of the Act and therefore, the demand draft for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- dated 23rdfebruary 2002 bearing No. 182422 cannot be accepted and the same is returned and after the amendment, it is open for the petitioner to make necessary application in the prescribed proforma as per the Souharda Act. Assailing the said endorsement dated 15thnovember 2002, vide Annexure H, the petitioner had filed an I. A. and the said application was allowed and petitioner was permitted to file amended petition. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed the amended writ petition, assailing the correctness of the endorsement dated 15thnovember 2002, vide Annexure H. ( 4 ) THE principal submission canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, the petitioner has filed the application well in time for converting the petitioner Society into souharda under the souharda act. The said request has neither been considered nor disposed of. He submitted that, as per section 5 (6) of the Karnataka Souharda Sahakarai Act, 1997, there is deemed conversion to the effect that, if the registration authority does not reject the application for conversion or pass any orders within three months from the date of receipt of the application for registration, then, it is deemed that, Souharda Sahakari is registered. Further, he vehemently submitted that, it is duty cast on the authority that, after the receipt of the application to registration, to see that challan is sent to the applicant, to enable him or her to pay the registration fee. When there is lapse on the part of the authority only. They cannot issue the impugned endorsement, without disposing of the application filed by the petitioner for registration. When there is lapse on the part of the authority only. They cannot issue the impugned endorsement, without disposing of the application filed by the petitioner for registration. However, to be on the safer side, the petitioner has sent a draft for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- dated 23rdseptember 2002 bearing No. 182422 along with a letter dated 30thseptember 2002. Instead of accepting the said deemed draft and issuing the Registration Certificate, the second respondent has issued the impugned endorsement, which is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Souharda Act and the same is one without any jurisdiction and hence it is liable to be set aside. ( 5 ) FURTHER, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of THE PROPOSED DHARWAD DIST. EX-SERVICEMENS CO-OP. SOCIETY LIMITED, HUBLI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in 1992 (3) K. L. J. 659 and submitted that, in view of the said judgment of this Court the petitioner is entitled for issuance of Registration Certificate and the respondents are bound to issue the Registration Certificate in view of the fact that, the petitioner has filed the application in time and in accordance with law. Therefore, he submitted that, the petitioner is entitled to see appropriate direction for issuance of Registration Certificate and consequently, to set aside the impugned endorsement issued by the second respondent. ( 6 ) PER contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents, inter alia contended and submitted that, the petitioner is not entitled to seek the relief as sought for by it in the instant writ petition. The prayer sought for by the petitioner is totally misconceived one and so far as the second prayer (a) (a) is concerned, the said endorsement has been issued returning therewith the demand draft sent by the petitioner, on the ground that, since no confirmation has been received from the Government regarding the amendment to from the Government regarding the amendment to Souharda Act and till the Government takes appropriate decision in the matter, the application filed by the petitioner was returned with liberty reserved to the petitioner to re-present the application after the amendment is made. Therefore, he submitted that, there is no error or illegality as such committed in issuing the impugned endorsement to the petitioner. Therefore, he submitted that, there is no error or illegality as such committed in issuing the impugned endorsement to the petitioner. Further, he submitted that admittedly, the application filed by the petitioner society for conversion into Souharda is not in accordance with law and also the mandatory provisions of the Act. Therefore, when the application filed by the petitioner itself is defective in nature and the same has been stated in unequivocal terms in the writ petition, the question of issuing the deemed Registration Certificate does not arise and the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner Society ought to have been registered as Souharda has got no substance nor the petitioner is entitled to seek for such a relief. Therefore, the prayer sought for by the petitioner is totally misconceived and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. ( 7 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents and after careful perusal of the material available on file and the contentions urged by both the counsel, the questions that arise for consideration are as to:i) Whether the petitioner Society is entitled to seek for a declaration that the petitioner society is entitled for issuance of Registration Certificate as envisaged under Section 5 (6) of the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997? ii) Whether the impugned endorsement issued by the second respondent is in accordance with law and whether the second respondent is justified in issuing the same?re-question (i): The petitioner has stated in unequivocal terms in paragraph 2 of the writ petition that, in pursuance of the Karanataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, the petitioner Society has passed the resolution and taken a decision to seek conversion from housing into souharda. After the petitioner Society has taken the said decision on 30thseptember 1991 under subject No. 8 vide Annexure A, the petitioner has presented the application to the second respondent on 12thnovember 2001, requesting to consider the request of the petitioner Society for conversion from housing to Souharda. It is also stated that, along with the said application the petitioner could not deposit the registration fee of Rs. 5,000/- in view of non issuance of challan under the seal of the competent authority. Be that as it may. It is also stated that, along with the said application the petitioner could not deposit the registration fee of Rs. 5,000/- in view of non issuance of challan under the seal of the competent authority. Be that as it may. ( 8 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that, it has sent several reminders and also issued a legal notice, but inspite of all these, no reply has been received from the authorities. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, to be on the safer side, they have sent the demand draft for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- dated 23rdseptember 2002 as registration fee vide their letter dated 30thseptember 2002 and sought for issuance of the Registration Certificate, stating that, the petitioner is deemed to have been registered under sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the Souharda Act. The statements made by the petitioner at paragraphs 2 and 3 of the writ petition are sufficient to show that, the application filed by the petitioner for registration under the Souharda Act dated 12thnovember 2001 was not in accordance with the mandatory provisions of the Act and the same was defective in nature in as much as the same was not accompanied by necessary registration fee. When the application filed by the petitioner itself is not in order and not in accordance with the mandatory provisions of the Souharda Act, the petitioner is not entitled to seek for a declaration as envisaged under the mandatory provisions of Section 5 (6) of the Souharda Act, and seek deemed conversion. The submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the specific ground taken by the petitioner have no legs to stand nor there is any force in the same. Hence, in view of the categorical statement made by the petitioner at paragraphs 2 and 3 of the writ petition, I do not have any hesitation to reject the said submission and the specific ground taken by the petitioner in the instant writ petition seeking declaration that the petitioner Society is deemed to have been registered under the Souharda Act and are entitled for issuance of Registration Certificate. Therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioner is totally misconceived in nature and the petitioner is not entitled to seek such a relief at the hands of this Court. Therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioner is totally misconceived in nature and the petitioner is not entitled to seek such a relief at the hands of this Court. Re-question (II): After receipt of the demand draft dated 23rdseptember 2002 bearing No. 182422 in a sum of Rs. 5,000/- vide letter dated 30thseptember 2002 of the petitioner, the second respondent has issued an endorsement to the petitioner vide Annexure H informing that, in view of the proposed amendment to the Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, the second respondent is not in a position to accept the demand draft sent by the petitioner until and unless necessary amendment is brought by the competent authority. Reserving the request of the petitioner for registration under the Souharda Act, the application filed by the petitioner dated 12thnovember 2001 and the demand draft dated 23rdseptember 2002 was returned to the petitioner was returned to the petitioner permitting the petitioner to make the necessary application, if it is so advised, at a later date or after necessary amendment is brought. The said reason assigned in the impugned endorsement, in my considered view, is in accordance with law and I do not find any error or illegality as such committed by the authority in issuing the same nor the petitioner is entitled to assail the same on the ground that the said endorsement is erroneous. The impugned endorsement has to be read as a whole. It only returns the application filed by the petitioner along with the demand draft reserving liberty to the petitioner to make necessary application after amendment. The said endorsement is in accordance with law and the same is not required to be interfered with. ( 9 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any good grounds to sustain the instant writ petition filed by the petitioner, hence, it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. However, the dismissal of the writ petition will not preclude the petitioner from redressing its grievances before the appropriate authority under the Souharda Act, if it is so advised. --- *** --- .