Order Seeking a direction upon the respondent no. 4 for payment of Rs. 4,76,680/- along with interest @ 18 % per annum on account of dues payable for the residential Flat No. H4 situated at Ist floor of H-Block in Geetanjali Complex, Kadma, Jamshedpur and a further prayer upon the respondent nos. 2 & 3 to take appropriate legal action against the respondent no. 4 under the provision of Bihar Self Supporting Cooperative Societies Act, 1996, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The brief facts of the case shorn of unnecessary details are thus: The petitioner Neelanchal Griha Nirman Swabalambi Sahakari Samity Limited is registered as a cooperative society under the Bihar Self Supporting Cooperative Societies Act, 1996. The respondent no. 4 was admitted as a member of the petitioner-society. The petitioner-society which had acquired land at Kadma for constructing the residential flats, required its members to provide the cost fixed by the petitioner-society for allotting flats to the members. Vide letter dated 24.05.2007, the respondent no. 4 was confirmed as an allottee of a flat. The respondent no. 4 vide letter dated 28.05.2007 expressed his willingness to take flat along with Car Parking space. Accordingly, an agreement for sale was executed between the petitioner-society and the respondent no. 4 on 07.05.2008 for total consideration of Rs. 17,87,000/-. The residential flats so allotted to the respondent no. 4 was admeasuring about 1300 Sq. feet however, after construction when the measurement was taken it was found that it covered an area of 1412 Sq feet and accordingly, vide order dated 25.03.2010, the respondent no. 4 was asked to make payment of additional amount of Rs. 85,680/-. It is stated that the respondent no. 4 is to paid an amount of Rs. 4,76,680/- to the petitioner-society including an increased amount of Rs. 85,680/- however, he did not pay the same. On 13.02.2011 the matter was discussed in the General Body of the petitioner-society and a resolution was passed to grant another 15 days to the respondent no. 4 for making payment however, the respondent no. 4 intentionally did not received letter dated 23.02.2011 nor did he pay balance amount to the petitioner-society. Subsequently, on 07.08.2011 it was resolved that one more opportunity may be granted to him and a legal notice dated 13.08.2012 was sent to the respondent no. 4 accompanied by reminders. 3. 4 for making payment however, the respondent no. 4 intentionally did not received letter dated 23.02.2011 nor did he pay balance amount to the petitioner-society. Subsequently, on 07.08.2011 it was resolved that one more opportunity may be granted to him and a legal notice dated 13.08.2012 was sent to the respondent no. 4 accompanied by reminders. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that since a dispute has arisen and is still subsisting between a member of the society and the society and therefore, the dispute has to be adjudicated by Cooperative Tribunal. Since in the State of Jharkhand, no Cooperative Tribunal is functioning, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. It is further submitted that as the dispute between the petitioner-society and the respondent no. 4 would be in connection with or incidental to dispute which touches upon the constitution, management or business of a Cooperative Society as provided under Section 40(b), the dispute has to be adjudicated upon by the Cooperative Tribunal. It is further submitted that in terms of provision under Section 41 of the Bihar Self Supporting Cooperative Societies Act, 1996, the Cooperative Tribunal alone has been given power to order recovery and since under Section 50 of the Act, jurisdiction of all Civil and Revenue Courts is barred, the dispute can be adjudicated by the Cooperative Tribunal alone. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to provision under Section 52 of the Act to contend that since, the Cooperative Tribunal is not functioning in the State of Jharkhand it was for the State Government to provide an alternative forum or to clarify matter in terms of Section 52 of the Act. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-State of Jharkhand has raised a preliminary objection as to maintainability to the writ petition and submitted that since no relief has been sought in the present writ petition against the State, the writ petition is not maintainable. The dispute as disclosed in the writ petition is a private dispute between two private parties and therefore, in that view of the matter also the writ petition is not maintainable. 6. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 7. The dispute as disclosed in the writ petition is a private dispute between two private parties and therefore, in that view of the matter also the writ petition is not maintainable. 6. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 7. Section 40 of the Bihar Self Supporting Cooperative Societies Act, 1996 provides that a dispute may be referred to the Cooperative Tribunal for decision if the dispute touches upon the constitution, management or business of the Cooperative Society and it further provides that the matters connected therewith or incidental thereto between a member past or present claiming through a member, past member or deceased member and the Cooperative Society, its Board, director, officer bearer or liquidator past or present can also be referred to the Cooperative Tribunal for decision. The expression “matters connected therewith” or “incidental thereto” must be read in consonance with object of Section 40 of the Act which refers to constitution, management or business of a Cooperative Society. The dispute raised by the petitioner does not touch upon the constitution, management or business of the Cooperative Society. The dispute disclosed in the writ petition is nonpayment of cost of flat/increased cost of flat by a member of the Cooperative Society. The relevant extract of Section 40 of the Bihar Self Supporting Cooperative Societies Act, 1996 is extracted below: “40. Settlement of disputes:- (1) If any dispute arises touching the constitution, management or business or a Cooperative Society, and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto: (a) among members, past members and persons claiming through members, past members and deceased members, or (b) between a member, past member or a person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member and the Cooperative Society, its board, director, officer bearer or liquidator, past or present, or....................” 8. The power under Section 41 of the Act given to the Cooperative Tribunal to order recovery also cannot be resorted to in the present case. The power under Section 41 of the Act given to the Cooperative Tribunal to order recovery also cannot be resorted to in the present case. It is amply clear from the provision under Section 41 that in cases where action has been sought to be taken against the person on account of whose conduct the Cooperative society has incurred loss and if a report of the Auditor or the Special Auditor or the Enquiry Officer is laid before the Cooperative Tribunal, in such cases power under Section 41 of the Act can be resorted. Section 41 of the Bihar Self Supporting Cooperative Societies Act, 1996 is extracted below: “41. Power of the Tribunal to order recovery. (1) A member, director or chairperson of the Co-Operative Society may and the Registrar shall file a copy of the report of the auditor or the special auditor or the enquiry officer, before the Tribunal with an application for necessary action against the person on account of whose conduct the Cooperative Society has incurred loss. The Tribunal may on the basis of such report disallow every item of expenditure incurred contrary to law and order recovery of the same from the person held responsible in the said report for any deficiency, loss or unprofitable outlay occasioned by his negligence or misconduct or of any such amount which ought to have been accounted but is not brought into account by that person and shall, in every such case, specify the amount liable to be paid by such person to the Cooperative Society. Explanation. - It shall not be open to any person whose negligence or misconduct has caused or contributed to any such deficiency or loss to contend that notwithstanding his negligence or misconduct the deficiency or loss would not have occurred, but for the negligence or misconduct of some other person. (2) The Tribunal shall state in writing the reasons for its decision in respect of every disallowance, surcharge and a copy of such decision shall be served on the persons against whom it is made in the manner laid down for the service of summons in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Provided that the Tribunal shall not pass any order of recovery under this section unless the person against whom any such order is passed has had an opportunity of making a representation either by himself or through the counsel. Provided that the Tribunal shall not pass any order of recovery under this section unless the person against whom any such order is passed has had an opportunity of making a representation either by himself or through the counsel. (3) Any person aggrieved by an order passed under this section may, within sixty days after the date of service on him of the order by the Tribunal, file an appeal against such order in the High Court. (4) The order passed by the Tribunal or the High Court shall be executed in the same manner as a decree of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.” 9. In so far as, the provision contained under Section 50 of the Act excluding jurisdiction of Civil or Revenue Court is concerned, it provides that only the matters covered under Section 40 or 41 and 43 & 44 are excluded from the purview of the Civil or Revenue Court. Section 50 of the Bihar Self Supporting Cooperative Societies Act, 1996 is extracted below: “50. Bar of Jurisdiction of Court. (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no Civil or Revenue Court shall have any jurisdiction in respect of any dispute required by section 40 to be referred to the Cooperative Tribunal, or recovery proceedings under Section 41 or dissolution under Sections 43 and 44. (2) While a Cooperative Society is in liquidation under Section 45, no suit or other legal proceedings shall be proceeded with or instituted against the liquidator as much (sic) or against the Cooperative Society or any member thereof on any matter touching the affairs of the Cooperative Society, except by leave of the Registrar and subject to such terms as he may impose.” 10. The dispute between the petitioner-society and the respondent no. 4 is in the nature of a money claim. I find substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent-State of Jharkhand that the dispute between the parties is purely a private dispute. The writ petition is not maintainable and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.