JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. N. Umakanta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R.K. Nokulsana, learned senior counsel for the respondents. 2. This is a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Article 226 of the same, praying for quashing the Judgment and Order dated 24.06.2015 of the Manipur State Co-Operative Tribunal, passed in Co-Operative Revision Case No. 1/2014 being allegedly erroneous and arbitrary and in excess of jurisdiction. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in pursuant to the Tribunal’s Judgment and Order (the impugned Judgment and Order), an order dated 09.02.2016 has been issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Manipur, wherein the Registrar in exercise of his power conferred under Section 83 of the Manipur Co-operative Societies Act, 1976 appointed 2 (two) officers of the rank of Inspector in the department of Cooperative, namely, (1) Shri M. Birmangol Singh, Inspector, C.S. DCO/ Office, Bishnupur and (2) Shri A. Somorendro Singh, Inspector, C/S. R.C.S. Office, Lamphelpat, Manipur to conduct a fresh enquiry by giving notice to all concerned in order to establish a genuine membership list of the society, namely Wapokpi Khunnou Collective Farming C.S. Ltd. till the latest status i.e. month of May 2014 and to submit a detail and exhaustive report to him (the Registrar) within 20 (twenty) days from the date of issue of the order. The learned counsel submitted further that in view of this development, the petitioners have no objection in continuing with that enquiry, except that that portion of the order of the Tribunal (impugned Judgment and Order) stating that petitioner No. 1 in the Co-Operative Revision Case No. 1/2014, namely Nongmaithem Chhattra Singh as genuine member of the society be struck off. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that provided, the enquiry is conducted impartially by impartial officers, he has no objection to that. And he also submitted that the parties should be given opportunity of being heard both during the enquiry and when the report is submitted before the Registrar. 5. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that provided, the enquiry is conducted impartially by impartial officers, he has no objection to that. And he also submitted that the parties should be given opportunity of being heard both during the enquiry and when the report is submitted before the Registrar. 5. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the finding of the Tribunal that Nongmaithem Chhattra Singh, petitioner No. 1 in Co-Operative Revision Case No. 1/2014 as genuine member of the Society is in excess of the jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal as the enquiry to decide as to who is or are members of the society is yet to be determined appears to be infructuous now, because in the para 3(xiv) of the writ petition itself, the person is shown/stated as deceased. 6. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel representing the parties, this petition is disposed of with the following direction that the enquiry be conducted by following all the relevant rules in all impartiality and both during and after the enquiry report is submitted, the parties should be given ample opportunity of being heard before deciding the issue under dispute.