Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the third respondent has not given the application forms to the members of the petitioner union, to become members of the third respondent Society, as per bye-law No.5 of the said society. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the third respondent society had issued an order, dated 18.10.2012, after the filing of the present writ petition, stating that the members of the petitioner union had not approached the third respondent for obtaining the application forms, within the time specified in the notification calling for the applications. As such, the third respondent has acted in a mala fide manner, only with the intention of denying the basic rights of the members of the petitioner union to become members of the third respondent society. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the present writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is not maintainable, in view of the decision of the larger bench of this Court, made in K.Marappan Vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the Special Officer, Vattur Co-operative Agricultural Bank ( 2006(4) CTC 689 ). The learned counsel had further submitted that it is for the aggrieved parties to prefer an appeal against the order passed by the third respondent, dated 18.10.2012, before the first respondent, under Section 152 of the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. 5. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is not maintainable, in view of the decision of the larger bench of this Court, made in K.Marappan Vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the Special Officer, Vattur Co-operative Agricultural Bank ( 2006(4) CTC 689 ). However, it is made clear that it would be open to the members of the petitioner union to challenge the order passed by the third respondent, dated 18.10.2012, before the appropriate authority or forum, if so advised, in the manner known to law. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.