JUDGMENT I.A. No. 1323/2013 The instant interlocutory application has been preferred on behalf of the intervener-applicant Potamdaga Maatsyajeevi Sahyog Samiti Ltd., Dulmi, Ramgarh through its President Karu Kewat seeking his impleadment as party respondent in the present writ application whose registration granted by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society, Hazaribagh vide Registration No. 07/Hazaribagh/2011 has been impugned in the present writ application by the petitioners which is also a Matsayajeevi Sahyog Samiti. Strangely enough, though the registration of the instant intervener has been sought to be challenged, but the petitioners have not impleaded him as a party respondent whose vital rights are likely to be affected on the outcome of the writ application. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application is allowed and the intervener is allowed to be impleaded as a party respondent no. 6 in the instant writ application, for which necessary correction may be carried out by the counsel appearing on behalf of the intervener-applicant during course of the day in red ink. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioners in the present writ application, have prayed for quashing of the certificate issued by the respondent no. 5-Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Hazaribagh in favour of the intervener-applicant vide 07/Hazaribagh/2011. 3. The contention of the petitioners is that its cooperative society has been registered by the Registrar under the Cooperative Societies Act and are carrying out activities of fishing in the area comprising Chittarpur and Chattar Mandu. The petitioners society had been granted fishing rights for the entire area falling under the two blocks, referred to herein above. However, by the impugned order granting registration to the other society who has been impleaded as a party respondent herein above, bye-laws of the petitioners society have been virtually amended. The impugned action of the respondent no. 5 is in teeth of the specific provisions of section 26 of the Bihar Cooperative Societies Act, 1935, now adopted by the State of Jharkhand, as the same has been done without giving any notice or opportunity of being heard to the petitioners society. 4. The State respondent, on the other hand, have appeared and filed their counter affidavit. It is their considered stand that the area originally comprising within the two blocks Chittarpur and Chattar Mandu were reorganized leading to creation of new block of Dulami. Recognizing the fishing rights of the society, registration have been granted in favour of the newly added respondent no. It is their considered stand that the area originally comprising within the two blocks Chittarpur and Chattar Mandu were reorganized leading to creation of new block of Dulami. Recognizing the fishing rights of the society, registration have been granted in favour of the newly added respondent no. 6 and it does not amount to any amendment in the bye-laws of the petitioners society for which no compliance of provisions of section 26 of the Bihar Cooperative Society Act was necessary. He further submits that the petitioners have alternative remedy of appeal which they have failed to invoke. 5. Counsel for the newly added respondent no. 6, on the other hand, has supported the stand of the State respondent and submitted that the instant writ application is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the parties, as the private respondent being the necessary and proper party and whose vital interest were likely to be affected and whose registration were challenged in the present writ application, have not been impleaded originally by the writ petitioners. He further submits that the impugned action therefore do not amount to any amendment in the bye-laws of the petitioners society. Counsel for the private respondent further submits that even the petitioners have not sought to challenge any amendment said to have been introduced in their bye-laws, as claimed by the petitioners during course of their argument. 6. I have learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant materials on record. The petitioners have challenged the registration granted to the private respondent by the respondent no. 5 on the creation of the new block of Dulami which has been carved out of the jurisdiction of the existing two blocks Chittarpur and Chattar Mandu. This exercise apparently appears to be an independent exercise necessitated on account of creation of the new jurisdiction of the new block which has been created by the policy decision of the State. The private respondent are said to be functioning in the newly created block of Dulami. The impugned exercise have therefore been intended to grant registration to the independent society to function in the newly created block. This action therefore cannot be stretched so as to contend that it has amounted to an amendment of bye-laws of the petitioners society itself. The private respondent are said to be functioning in the newly created block of Dulami. The impugned exercise have therefore been intended to grant registration to the independent society to function in the newly created block. This action therefore cannot be stretched so as to contend that it has amounted to an amendment of bye-laws of the petitioners society itself. The petitioners society has full liberty to operate and function within the area which are existing after creation of the Dulami block. Moreover, the writ petition suffers from misjoinder of the parties and should have been dismissed on that score alone. The petitioners also had remedy of appeal, if at all it was aggrieved by any such alleged amendment of its bye-laws by preferring an appeal under section 26(3) of the Cooperative Societies Act. I, therefore, do not find any ground to interfere in the present writ application which apparently is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.