Judgment : This writ application is directed against an order dated March 31, 2009 passed by the respondent no.1 in compliance of the judgment dated April 2, 2008 delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Woodburn Park Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Smt. Chanda Devi Tantia and Ors. (in re. Civil No.2638 of 2005). The back drop of this case in a nutshell is as follows:- The East End Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. was the owner of two plots of land, viz, premises no.5B Woodburn Park, Calcutta-700020, and 11/1B, Ekdalia Place, Calcutta-700019. The intention of the above society was to construct two multi-storied residential buildings on the aforesaid two plots of land for its members. After construction of a multi storied residential building at 11/1B Ekdalia place, Calcutta700019, a dispute arose between the members of the society and the Managing Committee which was brought before the High Court at Calcutta. A Division Bench of this High Court directed the respondent no.1 by an order dated December 15, 1978 passed in appeal no.504 of 1977 to take steps for division of the assets and liabilities of the above Co-operative Society constituted at Ekdalia place and Woodburn Park Road in accordance with the provisions of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 1973(hereinafter referred to as the said Act). In compliance with the order passed by this High Court as stated hereinabove, the respondent no.1 passed a preliminary order dated September 5, 1979 under sub-section(1) of Section 77 of the said Act for the purpose of dividing the assets and liabilities of the aforesaid society. Some recognized members of the petitioner no.1 and raised objection against the above preliminary order. On June 23, 1980 the respondent no.2 passed final order of division bearing no.688/ CMAH under the provisions of sub-section(3) of Section 77 of the said Act and registered two new societies, viz, Woodburn Park Co-operative Societies and Ekdalia Housing Co-operative Ltd. By an order dated August 8, 1988 the respondent no.2 appointed Directors of first Managing Committee of the petitioner no.1 in exercise of powers conferred upon him under sub-rule(1) of Rule 30 of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Rules, 1974. The aforesaid objectors filed application under Article 226 of the constitution of India bearing no.3922(W) of 1981 before this High Court challenging the aforesaid final order dated June 23, 1980 passed by the respondent no.2 on the ground that no notice had been served upon them before passing the aforesaid final order. The above writ application was disposed of by an order dated June 20, 1984 setting aside the final order dated June 23, 1980 as also directing the respondent no.1 to hear the preliminary objections filed by the members in accordance with law. An appeal bearing F.M.A.T No.1971 of 1984 was preferred against the above judgment and order. A Division Bench of this High Court dismissed the above appeal by an order dated August 1, 2002. The petitioner society filed Special Leave Petition against the above order dated August 1, 2002 passed in FMAT No.1971 of 1984 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court upon leave being granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the appeal preferred by the petitioner society being Civil Appeal no.2638 of 2005 (in re. Woodburn Park Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Smt. Chanda Devi Tantia and Ors.) was disposed of on April 2, 2008 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the following directions. “In the background of factual position it would be appropriate to set aside the High Court’s orders. Let the matter be considered by the Registrar afresh within a period of 6 months. The enquiry will be restricted to decide the question whether there was any resignation and whether letter of resignation was signed by the objectors and whether the resignation was approved by any resolution and on the question of refund of share money and the effect of refund and acceptance. The Registrar shall also consider the other materials which have relevance so far as resignation in consideration. It would be open to the Registrar to call for the records and the documents from the parties within a period of 6 months. There would be no allotment to 13 persons who raised objections until decision is taken by the Registrar. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. It would be open to the Registrar to call for the records and the documents from the parties within a period of 6 months. There would be no allotment to 13 persons who raised objections until decision is taken by the Registrar. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.” In compliance of the above order, the respondent no.1 passed the impugned order dated March 31, 2009 after hearing the parties as follows: “Assessing all the pros and cons, considering all the papers and documents submitted by the Respondents/Writ petitioners and the Appellant Society i.e. Woodburn Park Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and the exercise of power conferred upon me by the Hon’ble Society Ltd. and in exercise of power conferred upon me by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.2638 of 2005 in the solemn Direction on 2nd April 2008, on the basis of equity, justice and good conscience, I do pass the following Final Order: FINAL ORDER a) Smt Chandra Devi Tantia (Writ petitioner/RespondentNo.1) Smt Bimala Devi Singhania (Writ petitioner/RespondentNo.2) Smt Sarala Mundra (Writ petitioner/RespondentNo.6) Sri Chunilal Phumbhra (Writ petitioner/RespondentNo.7) Smt Lakhmi Mundra (Writ petitioner/RespondentNo.8) Sri Bhairundan Banthia (Writ petitioner/RespondentNo.9) Sri Subhas Kumar Khajanchi (Writ petitioner/RespondentNo.10) Sri Sailendra Nath Bhattacharjee (Writ petitioner/RespondentNo.11) and Sri Kedar Nath Suri (Writ petitioner/RespondentNo.12) are the members of the Woodburn Part Co-operative Housing Society Ltd, including legal heirs as the case may be bearing regn. No.34/CMAH of 1980 of 5B, Woodburn Park, Kolkata- 700020 and b) The said society is also directed to consider with immediate effect the provision of a flat in accordance with the sanctioned Plan submitted before the undersigned and the allotment and the cost of construction of the flat is to be considered on the basis of the projection cost whichever is higher, estimated at the time of induction of those six persons and/or the total amount collected as per balance sheet during the period of giving possession individually to those six persons, subject to escalation cost if any; and c) The deposit of Bhabani Mohan Motilal, Writ Petitioner/Respondent no.12 be refunded immediately with bankable interest. petitioner/RespondentNo.3) Smt Pushpa Devi Phumbhra (Writ petitioner/RespondentNo.4) Smt Maina Devi Phumbhra (Writ petitioner/RespondentNo.5) Sri Makhanlal Phumbhra (Writ The matter is thus disposed of. Let the plaint copy of the order be communicated to the parties concerned through their Ld. Counsels from the office.” It is submitted by Mr. petitioner/RespondentNo.3) Smt Pushpa Devi Phumbhra (Writ petitioner/RespondentNo.4) Smt Maina Devi Phumbhra (Writ petitioner/RespondentNo.5) Sri Makhanlal Phumbhra (Writ The matter is thus disposed of. Let the plaint copy of the order be communicated to the parties concerned through their Ld. Counsels from the office.” It is submitted by Mr. Ahin Chowdhury, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the respondent no.1 exceeded his jurisdiction to inquire into the matter and passed the arbitrary and illegal order ignoring the relevant records and taking into consideration irrelevant factual aspects. It is submitted by him that the respondent no.1 did not take into consideration the relevant records for deciding the issue of resignation of the private respondents from the petitioner society. The attention of this court is drawn towards true copies of the communication dated January 10, 1980 issued by the respondent no.15 (at page 298, of this writ application), communication dated January 8, 1980 of the respondent no.14 (at page 300 of this writ application), communication dated December 26, 1979 of late Bhabani Mohan Motilal(at page 302 of this writ application) to submit that all the above communications were addressed to the respondent no.2 and copies of those letters duly certified by the office of the respondent no.1 were produced at the time of hearing. According to him those communications were relevant for deciding the issue of resignation of some of the private respondents from the petitioner society. Attention is also drawn to a copy of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the predecessor in interest of the respondent no.20, 21 and 22 in C.R. no.3922(W) of 1981 (at page 379 of this writ application) to submit that the statements made therein were relevant for consideration of the issue of resignation of predecessor in interest of the aforesaid respondents. Similarly, attention of this court is drawn towards a copy of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent no.4 (at page 366 of this writ application) to submit that the same was relevant for deciding the issue of resignation of the above respondent from the petitioner society in view of the statements made in the above reply. According to him the observations made by the respondent no.1 in the impugned order with regard to for non-acceptance of those documents cannot be sustained in law. According to him the observations made by the respondent no.1 in the impugned order with regard to for non-acceptance of those documents cannot be sustained in law. Because the respondent no.1 ignored those documents on the ground that those documents had been filed before this High Court in connection with writ application and appeal arising out of that writ application. But the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside all the orders passed in the above cases. It is submitted by him that liberty was given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the respondent no.1 to call for the records and documents. No effort was made by him to collect the resignation letters of the private respondents or their predecessors from the President of East End Society. According to him, the respondent no.1 decided the issue of approval of resignation without making an effort to collect the relevant resolutions in original from the President of the East End Society. It is also submitted by him that the respondent no.1 did not accept the certified copies on the basis of wrong interpretation of the provisions of Rule 189 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 1974 and Rule 231 of the West Bengal Societies Rule, 1987. According to him, the interpretation of respondent no.1 of the provisions of Section 138 with regard to presumption was not correct. Drawing the attention of this court towards the observations made by the respondent no.1 that though reliance was placed on the audit reports for the year 1976-77, 1977-78 duly certified by the office of the respondent no.2, the respondent no.1 did not accept similar certified copies of the resignation letters submitted by the private respondents or their predecessors as also resolutions dated February 1, 1976 August 22, 1976, December 11, 1`979, April 17, 1977, November 28, 1978 and March 21, 1979 duly certified by the office of the respondent no.2. It is submitted by him that the respondent no.1 traveled beyond his jurisdiction in allotting Flats in favour of the private respondents, as also directing the petitioner society to refund the deposit of the predecessor in interest of the respondent nos. 17,18 and 19 with interest. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies upon the decisions of Union of India Vs. Flight Cadet Ashish Rai, reported in (2006) 2 SCC 364 , A.P.S.R.T.C Vs. 17,18 and 19 with interest. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies upon the decisions of Union of India Vs. Flight Cadet Ashish Rai, reported in (2006) 2 SCC 364 , A.P.S.R.T.C Vs. G. Srinivas Reddy, reported in (2003) 3 SCC 674, State of U.P. Vs. Johri Mal, reported in AIR 2004 SC 3800 in support of his above submissions. It is submitted by Mr. Anindya Mitra, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 3,6, 12 that none of the answering respondents submitted resignation letters. No resignation letter in original was produced before the respondent no.1. The respondent no.2 certified some of the certified copies of the resignation letters those were produced before the respondent no.1 in course of hearing by the petitioner society. Drawing the attention of this court towards the provisions of Rule 231 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 1987 it is submitted by him that a copy of any document or entries in the books of a Co-operative Society should be certified to be a true copy under the signature of the Chairman, the Secretary, the Executive Officer. No certified copy of any document in compliance of the above rule had been submitted before the respondent no.1 in course of hearing. The document which were produced before the respondent no.1 were certified to be true by the Chairman of East End Society where the certifications were not done in accordance with the provisions of Rule 189 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 1987. According to him, the petitioner society followed the procedure of producing certified copies of certified copies in support of their submissions with regard the resolutions for accepting the resignations of the answering respondents. No original receipt in acknowledgment of refund of share money was produced before the respondent no.1. According to him the relevant issues were duly considered by the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 take into consideration the balance sheet of 1976-77 it showed 118 member of the unit no.2 in the year 1976. No authentic document for receiving the refund by the answering respondents of their share money was produced before the respondent no.1. Therefore, according to him there was no procedural impropriety in the decision of the respondent no.1. According to him adequacy of materials available before the respondent no.1 cannot be invalid in course of judicial review. No authentic document for receiving the refund by the answering respondents of their share money was produced before the respondent no.1. Therefore, according to him there was no procedural impropriety in the decision of the respondent no.1. According to him adequacy of materials available before the respondent no.1 cannot be invalid in course of judicial review. He relied upon the decisions of Union of India Vs. Harjeet Singh Sandhu, reported in (2001) 5 SCC 593 . Appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.4,15,20,21 and 22 it is submitted by Mr. Ashok Kumar Banerjee, learned Senior Advocate that the petitioner society produced certified copies of certified copies of all the relevant documents those were not acceptable by the respondent no.1 in accordance with the provisions of Rule 189 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 1974. He repeated and reiterated the submissions made on behalf of the other respondents with regard to non-compliance of the provisions of Rule 231 of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Rules, 1987. Drawing the attention of this Court towards Section 63 of the Evidence Act, 1872 it was submitted by him that the document produced by the petitioner society should not be accepted by the respondent no.1. According to him, the respondent no.1 did not over step his jurisdiction while passing the impugned order in the light of the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He took into consideration the question of consequential benefit. Appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.5 and 13 Mr. K. D. Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate repeated and reiterated the submissions made on behalf of the other respondents. According to him records were not kept on the custody of the petitioner society in terms of the provisions of Section 124 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1973. It is submitted by Mr. Subrata Mukherjee appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2 that no letter of resignation was produced before the respondent no.1 in original. The Chairman of the petitioner society was one of the members of the erstwhile Managing Committee of the society. No step was taken by the petitioner society to collect the resignation letters and other relevant documents and to produce the same before the respondent no.1 in course of hearing. The Chairman of the petitioner society was one of the members of the erstwhile Managing Committee of the society. No step was taken by the petitioner society to collect the resignation letters and other relevant documents and to produce the same before the respondent no.1 in course of hearing. It is also submitted by him that some documents certified by the respondent no.2 were produced before the respondent no.1 those were the certified copies of the certified copies kept in the office of the respondent no.2. Drawing the attention of this High Court towards the impugned order, it is submitted by him that the shares certificates in original dated May 13, 1977 were received by the objectors. It is further submitted by him that in absence of production of letter of resignation in original it was not possible for the respondent no.1 to come to a conclusion that reliable document with regard to the resignation of the objectors was produced before the respondent no.1. With regard to the refund of money it is submitted by him that no receipt was issued by the authorized persons to the society was produced before the respondent no.1. It is repeated and reiterated by him that from the audit report for the year 1977-78 as submitted on June 30, 1978 it appeared that the shares were transferred after division of the society under reference. According to him no documents relating to acceptance of refund was produced before the respondent no.1. It is submitted by him that the respondent no.1 decided the issued of certification taking into consideration Rule 189 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 1974 and Rule 231 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 1987 read with Section 138 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1973 as also Section 79 of the Evidence Act, 1872. He relied upon the decisions of Vice- Chancellor Vs. S. K. Ghosh, reported in AIR 1954 SC 217 and Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651 in support of his above submissions. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties at length and I have given my anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of this case the impugned order passed by the respondent no.1 under memo no.3367(4)/iv-2444/81(Pt) dated March 31, 2009 is under judicial review in this writ application. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties at length and I have given my anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of this case the impugned order passed by the respondent no.1 under memo no.3367(4)/iv-2444/81(Pt) dated March 31, 2009 is under judicial review in this writ application. The respondent no.1 passed the impugned order in compliance of an order dated April 2, 2008 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Woodburn Park Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Chanda Devi Tantia & Ors (in re. Civil Appeal No.2638 of 2005). By virtue of the above order the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the respondent no.1 to reconsider the question of resignation of 13 objectors restructuring such consideration to an enquiry with regard to their resignation. In doing so, the respondent no.1 was directed to examine whether (i) the alleged letters of resignations were signed by the objectors, (ii) whether the resignations were approved by any resolution, (iii) whether the share money was refund to the objectors and the same was accepted by the objectors. In course of reconsideration of the matter the respondent no.1 came to a conclusion that no letter of resignation in original was produced before him, no attempt was made by the Woodburn Park Cooperative Housing Society to collect necessary books and records including the resignation letters as alleged from the erstwhile East End Society. He found that the certified copies of certified copies relating to the records of East End Society were produced before him. As a result, the respondent no.1 came to a conclusion that none of the objectors tendered resignation letter to the erstwhile East End Society. In examining the decision making process of the respondent no.1 this court cannot be take into consideration the adequacy of the material available before the respondent no.1. Reference may be made to the decision of Harjeet Singh Sandhu(supra) and the relevant portion of the above decision are quoted below: “42. In examining the decision making process of the respondent no.1 this court cannot be take into consideration the adequacy of the material available before the respondent no.1. Reference may be made to the decision of Harjeet Singh Sandhu(supra) and the relevant portion of the above decision are quoted below: “42. Exercise of power under Section 19 read with Rule 14 is open to judicial review of well-settled parameters of administrative law governing judicial review of administrative action such as when the exercise of power is shown to have been vitiated by mala fides or is found to be based wholly on extraneous and/or irrelevant grounds or is found to be a clear case of colourable exercise of/or abuse of power or what is sometimes called fraud on power i.e. where the power is exercised for achieving an oblique end. The truth or correctness or the adequacy of the material available before the authority exercising the power cannot be revalued or weighed by the court while exercising power of judicial review. Even if some of the material, on which the action is taken is found to be irrelevant, the court would still not interfere so long as there is some relevant material available on which the action can be sustained. The court would presume the validity of the exercise of power but shall not hesitate to interfere if the invalidity or unconstitutionality is clearly demonstrated. If two views are possible, the court shall not interfere by substituting its own satisfaction or opinion for the satisfaction or opinion of the authority exercising the power.” Therefore, this court is to examine the decision making process of the respondent no.1 on the basis of the materials which were made available before respondent no.1 in course of hearing. Upon consideration of the some materials on record I find that those were not the certified copies of certify copies of the documents those were document lying in the custody of the respondent no.2 and the respondent no.2 issued certified copies of those documents to the petitioner society. The petitioner society produced those documents before the respondent no.1 in course of hearing of the matter those are as follows: (i) A communication dated January 10, 1980 submitted by the respondent no.15 to the respondent no.2 with regard to the membership of the respondent no.15 in Woodburn Park Cooperative Society (at page 298 of this writ application). The petitioner society produced those documents before the respondent no.1 in course of hearing of the matter those are as follows: (i) A communication dated January 10, 1980 submitted by the respondent no.15 to the respondent no.2 with regard to the membership of the respondent no.15 in Woodburn Park Cooperative Society (at page 298 of this writ application). (ii) A Communication dated January 8, 1980 submitted by the respondent no.14 to the respondent no.2 with regard to the membership of the respondent no.15 in Woodburn Park Cooperative Society ( at page 300 of this writ application) (iii) A communication dated December 26, 1979 submitted to the respondent no.2 by the predecessor of interest of respondent nos.17,18 and 19 in Woodburn Park Cooperative Society (at page 302 of this writ application) (iv) A communication dated January 14, 1980 submitted to the respondent no.2 by the predecessor of interest of the respondent no.20, 21 and 22 in Woodburn Park Cooperative Society ( at page 303 of this writ application) (v) A communication dated September 11, 1978 submitted by the respondent no.3 address to the respondent no.2 in the matter of dispute among the members of East End Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (at page 309 and 314 of this writ application) (vi) Certified copies of the auditor’s report dated April 28, 1980 on statutory audit of erstwhile East End Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., for the year 1978-79 submitted before the Assistant Registrar showing surrender of 68 shares. The aforesaid documents were not certified copies of the certify copies. All of the above communications/documents were addressed to the respondent no.2 and the respondent no.2 issued certified copies of the same. Those were produced before the respondent no.1. Upon consideration of the above communication I find all those documents contained information regarding resignation and/or refund of money to the concerned respondents but those were not taken into consideration. It is the settled principles of law that in the event of non-consideration of relevant documents by the authority as final decision in the matter is vitiated due to procedural impropriety. In the event a court sitting in writ jurisdiction has no other alternative but to set aside the impugned decision of the authority. Reference may be made to the decision of State of U.P. Vs. In the event a court sitting in writ jurisdiction has no other alternative but to set aside the impugned decision of the authority. Reference may be made to the decision of State of U.P. Vs. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh, reported in (1989)2 SCC 505 the relevant portions of the above decision are quoted below: “60. However, judicial review under Article 226 cannot be converted into an appeal. Judicial review is directed, not against the decision, but is confined to the examination of the decision-making process. In Chief Constable of the North Wales Police Vs. Evans referes to the merits-legality distinction in judicial review. Lord Hailsham said: The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment, and not to ensure that the authority, after according fair treatment, reaches on a matter which it is authorized by law to decide for itself a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the court. 61. Lord Brightman observed: ……Judicial review, as the words imply, is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision was made…. And held that it would be an error to think: …….that the court sits in judgment not only on the correctness of the decision-making process but also on the correctness of the decision itself. 62. When the issue raised in judicial review is whether a decision is vitiated by taking into account irrelevant, or neglecting to take into account of relevant, factors or is so manifestly unreasonable that no reasonable authority, entrusted with the power in question could reasonable have made such a decision, the judicial review of the decision-making process includes examination, as a matter of law, of the relevance of the factors. In the present case, it is, however, not necessary to go into the merits and relevance of the grounds having regard to the view we propose to take on the point on natural justice.” That apart the respondent no.1 did not take into consideration the statements made by the predecessor of the respondent no.20 in an affidavit-in reply filed before the High Court in the writ petition bearing C.R. No.3922(W) of 1981 on the ground that those had hardly any relevance in view of the setting aside of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal nos.2638 of 2005. Needless to observe that a statement made by way of filing affidavit in a proceeding cannot loose its importance due to setting aside of any order passed in that proceeding. There was another impropriety in the decision making process of the respondent no.1 in passing the impugned order upon scrutiny of the relevant records produced before this court by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 I find that the respondent no.1 relied upon the certified copy of certified copy of the statutory audit report of the erstwhile East End Apartment Co-operative Society Ltd. for the year 1977 78. But he followed double standard in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner society to accept certified copies of certify copies of other documents. In view of the distinguishable facts and circumstances of this case I find that the decisions of Vice-Chancellor(supra) has no manner of application Consequent upon the discussions and observations made hereinabove I find that the decision making process of the respondent no1 in passing the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. The same is quashed and set aside. The respondent no.1 is directed to consider the matter afresh by passing a reasoned order strictly in compliance of the order dated April 2, 2008 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Woodburn Park Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Chanda Devi Tantia & Ors. ( in re. Civil Appeal No.2638 of 2005) within the period of three months. This writ application is, thus, disposed of. There will be, however, no order as costs.