JUDGMENT Biswanath Somadder, J.: 1. In terms of the order dated 31st July, 2012, Bimal Krishna Mazumder, the Cooperative Development Officer (Head Quarter), Cooperation Directorate, Hooghly Range, who passed the impugned order dated 26th June, 2012, is personally present in Court. He is being represented by the learned advocate for the State who tenders unqualified apology on behalf of the officer for not taking the trouble of ensuring that the parties were given true copies of the order dated 26th June, 2012, and instead handing over copies that were certified to be true copies, but were, in fact, not even compared with the original text of the order dated 26th June, 2012. He assures this Court that he will take up this issue with the concerned Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies so that such glaring and fundamental mistakes do not recur in future while issuing certified copies of orders. 2. Having regard to such submission made by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State, the personal appearance of Bimal Krishna Mazumder stands dispensed with. 3. A pure question of law falls for consideration in the instant matter, which is whether the provision of section 103 (2) of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006, would be attracted in respect of the dispute case, which was taken up for adjudication by the Cooperative Development Officer (Head Quarter), Cooperation Directorate, Hooghly Range, who passed the impugned order dated 22nd June, 2012. 4. The writ petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are, admittedly, a Housing Cooperative Society and its Secretary, respectively. It is the case of the writ petitioners that the private respondent nos. 6 and 7 had initially made certain allegations before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Hooghly Range, whereupon by an order dated 5th September, 2011, an enquiry officer was appointed to conduct enquiry into the affairs of the writ petitioner no. 1. The Enquiry Officer submitted an enquiry report on 26th September, 2011, before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Hooghly Range. Consequently, the Deputy Register, by a memo dated 30th September, 2011, addressed to the writ petitioner no. 2, requested that the decision of the Annual General Meeting and the Board Meeting were to be followed by the members so long as they did not contradict the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Consequently, the Deputy Register, by a memo dated 30th September, 2011, addressed to the writ petitioner no. 2, requested that the decision of the Annual General Meeting and the Board Meeting were to be followed by the members so long as they did not contradict the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Certain other directions were also issued by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, as contained in the memo dated 30th September, 2011, which have been elucidated in paragraph 11 of the writ petition. 5. It is the specific case of the writ petitioners that the private respondent nos. 6 and 7 have been trying to disturb the day to day smooth functioning of the housing society by raising objections, one after the other. According to the writ petitioners, even though a proper enquiry was conducted, the private respondents filed a dispute case before the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Cooperation Directorate, Hooghly Range, against the writ petitioner no. 1, which was registered as Dispute Case No. 22 of 2011-2012, whereupon, Shri Bimal Krishna Mazumder, being the Cooperative Development Officer, was appointed as an arbitrator by the Deputy Registrar. It is the impugned order of the arbitrator, which raises a question of law that pertains to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator to pass the impugned order. 6. According to the learned advocate for the writ petitioners, the provision of section 103 sub-section (2) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 2006, makes it clear that if any dispute relating to a housing cooperative society is filed before the Registrar, it is the statutory obligation on the part of the Registrar, upon admitting such dispute, to forthwith refer the same for a decision to a board of arbitrators, as constituted under sub-section (1) of section 103 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 2006. Once the dispute is before the board of arbitrators, the chief arbitrator of the board would either dispose of the matter himself or transfer it to any arbitrator or arbitrators for disposal. It is the admitted position that the dispute related to a housing cooperative society. The Registrar, however, did not proceed in terms of sub-section (2) of section 103 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 2006, and merely appointed an arbitrator, who could not have been appointed for adjudication in respect of a dispute relating to a housing cooperative society. It is the admitted position that the dispute related to a housing cooperative society. The Registrar, however, did not proceed in terms of sub-section (2) of section 103 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 2006, and merely appointed an arbitrator, who could not have been appointed for adjudication in respect of a dispute relating to a housing cooperative society. 7. On the other hand, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the private respondent no. 6 and 7 draws this Court’s attention to section 102 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 2006. He submits that the statutory definition of the word, ‘Registrar’, has been provided under subsection (56) of section 4 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 2006. If one considers the statutory definition of the word, ‘Registrar’, along with the provision of section 102 of West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 2006, it would be clear that even in the case of a dispute relating to a housing cooperative society, the Registrar can refer such a dispute before an arbitrary for the purpose of settlement of such dispute. 8. The learned advocate for the State submits that the writ petitioners have not referred to any legal right of theirs, which has been infringed upon. The arbitrator exercised proper jurisdiction upon the dispute being referred before him by the concerned Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. 9. The answer to the question of law raised in the instant matter – as observed at the very outset – lies within the provision of sub-section (2) of section 103 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 2006. For convenience, section 103 (2) is reproduced hereinbelow:- “A dispute under section 102 relating to all apex co-operative societies, all central co-operative societies and all housing co operative societies in the Kolkata and Metropolitan Area as defined in the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 1972 (West Ben. Act XI of 1972) shall be filed before the Registrar who shall after condoning the delay, if any, and admitting the dispute, forthwith refer it for decision to the board or arbitrators as constituted under sub-section (1) of this section. The chief arbitrator of the board may dispose it of himself or transfer it to any arbitrator or arbitrators for disposal.” 10. The chief arbitrator of the board may dispose it of himself or transfer it to any arbitrator or arbitrators for disposal.” 10. A plain reading of the above provision of law reveals the clear legislative intention to have disputes relating to certain cooperative societies – such as housing cooperative societies – to be referred by the Registrar for decision to the board of arbitrators, as constituted under subsection (1) of section 103. So far disputes relating to any cooperative society other than those mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 103 are concerned, the same shall be referred in the manner as laid under subsection (3) of section 103. Of course, a cooperative society falling within the class of cooperative societies as stated in sub-section (2) of section 103, has to be clearly within the jurisdiction of Kolkata and Metropolitan Area, (emphasis supplied) as defined in the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 1972 (West Bengal Act XI of 1972), otherwise, even if such a cooperative society falls within the class of cooperative societies as defined under sub-section (2) of section 103, it cannot come within the purview of sub-section (2) for the purpose of its disputes being referred by the Registrar for decision to the board of arbitrators, as constituted under sub-section (1) of section 103. 11. Therefore, not all disputes filed before the Registrar under section 102 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 2006, would attract the provision of sub-section (2) of section 103. In the instant case, it is the admitted position that the writ petitioner no. 1 is a housing cooperative society falling within the jurisdiction of Kolkata and Metropolitan Area, as defined in the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 1972. As such, the provision of sub-section (2) of section 103 of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006, is clearly attracted in the facts of the present case. 12. It is noticed that while referring the dispute to the arbitrator, the concerned Registrar never applied his mind to the provision of sub-section (2) of section 103 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 2006, which clearly governs the procedure for reference of a dispute raised in respect of a housing cooperative society falling within Kolkata and Metropolitan Area, as defined in the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 1972. Therefore, the impugned order dated 26th June, 2012, passed by the Cooperative Development Officer (Head Quarter), Cooperation Directorate, Hooghly Range, as arbitrator, is without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The dispute raised by the private respondent nos. 6 and 7 shall be adjudicated, upon reference by the Registrar, following the provision of sub-section (2) of section 103 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 2006. 13. This Court, however, makes it clear that it has not gone into the merits of the controversy in issue between the writ petitioners on one hand and the private respondent nos. 6 and 7, on the other. It will be open to the statutory authority to decide such dispute in accordance with law. 14. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly. 15. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties. BIDISHA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL WP No. 15613 (W) of 2012 Decided on: July 31,2012 Advocate Appeared: Pratik Dhar, Tarun Kumar Das, Anindya Bose for the petitioners; Keshab Bhattacharyya, Jagabandhu Ray for the respondent Nos. 6 & 7; Sailaja Nanda Bhattacharjya, Susmita Mukherjee for the State. 1. Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept on record. 2. After considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the instant application, this Court is unable to comprehend the contents of the order dated 26th June, 2012, being annexure "P-11" at pages 93 and 94 of the instant writ petition. The order appears to have been passed by the respondent No.5, who has been duly served notice together with a copy of the instant writ petition, but is unrepresented. 3. In such circumstances, the respondent No.5, namely, Bimal Krishna Mazumder, who is the Cooperative Development Officer (Head Quarter), Cooperation Directorate, Hooghly Range, is directed to be personally present in Court on next Monday (i.e., 06.08.2012) to unravel the comprehensible text of his order.