Judgment :- (1) The petitioner in W.P. No.22248(W) of 2005 dated October 14, 2005 claims that he is a member of Ranaghat Peoples Bank Limited, a co-operative society within the meaning of the provisions, of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. The petitioner in W.P. No.3172(W) of 2006 dated February 7, 2006 has made a similar claim. The person who took out CAN No.759 of 2007 in W.P. No.22248(W) of 2005 is claiming that he is also a member of the society. (2) The petitioners in both the writ petitions and the person who took out the application for addition of party all are aggrieved by a notice dated September 4, 2005, annexure P6 at p.63 to W.P. No.22248(W) of 2005. The notice was issued by one Arun Kumar Ghosh stating that subject to decisions in the pending cases mentioned in the notice and according to a letter of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Nadia dated July 12, 2005 and the provisions of Rule 27 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 1987, he was publishing the election programme for constitution of board of the society. (3) The first question that has arisen is whether questioning the notice the petitioners in the two writ petitions could approach the writ Court. It is not disputed that questioning the notice they were at liberty to file appropriate dispute cases under section 95 of the Act before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, West Bengal. It is not disputed either that in the dispute cases they could seek appropriate interim relief. The further undisputed position is that the person giving the notice dated September 4, 2005 has not given it in the discharge of his any statutory duties or obligations. The order stated to have been issued by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Nadia has not been questioned. (4) Mr Chatterjee, counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.22248(W) of 2005, has submitted that although questioning the notice the petitioner was at liberty to file a dispute case and seek interim relief, he chose to approach the writ Court. The order stated to have been issued by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Nadia has not been questioned. (4) Mr Chatterjee, counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.22248(W) of 2005, has submitted that although questioning the notice the petitioner was at liberty to file a dispute case and seek interim relief, he chose to approach the writ Court. because in connection with steps previously taken for holding election the writ Court had made an order dated November 20, 1998 appointing two special officers and directing them to hold election by January 31, 2001; and that since those special officers are still continuing, the person giving the impugned notice has virtually acted in violation of order of this Court. His submissions have been adopted by Mr Basu, counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.3172(W) of 2006. (5) Mr Sumitra Dasgupta, one of the special officers appointed by the order dated November 20, 1998 made in W.P. Nos.19167 and 20456(W) of 1998, is present in Court. He says that tenure of the special officers initially fixed upto May 31,1999 was extended upto January 31,2001; and that thereafter the tenure was not extended. He says that within the extended tenure he could not hold any election, since questioning the voters list prepared by the special officers, a member of the society instituted a dispute case in which an interlocutory order was made by the arbitrator restraining the special officers from proceeding any further. (6) The dispute case in which the restraining order was made was disposed of. The tenure of the special officers expired as back as January 31, 2001. The impugned notice was given only on September 4, 2005. At this date the special officers, who were appointed by the order dated November 20, 1998, were not empowered to hold election of the society. Hence if the petitioners were aggrieved by the election programme, they were at liberty to institute appropriate dispute case. They had no right to approach the writ Court straight. (7) For these reasons, both the writ petitions are dismissed. The application for addition of party shall be deemed to be disposed of. However, nothing herein shall prevent the petitioners from instituting dispute cases in accordance with law. There shall be no order for costs. They had no right to approach the writ Court straight. (7) For these reasons, both the writ petitions are dismissed. The application for addition of party shall be deemed to be disposed of. However, nothing herein shall prevent the petitioners from instituting dispute cases in accordance with law. There shall be no order for costs. Urgent certified xerox of this order, if applied for, shall be supplied to the parties within three days from the date of receipt of the file by the section concerned. Writ petition are dismissed