JUDGMENT : Ajit Singh, J. 1. This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 7.1.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court whereby he has dismissed appellant’s WP(C) No. 3494/2009. 2. Vide order dated 23.7.2009, the District Fishery Development Officer registered Respondent No.6 – M/s Dharnad Brahmaputra Fishery Cooperative Society Limited specifying the area of its operation. Aggrieved, the appellant challenged the order on the ground that registration could not have been granted on account of ban on registration of Fishery Cooperative Societies during the relevant time. 3. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order disagreed with the appellant and held as under:- “4. The justification for the registration granted to the Dharnad Society can be noticed from the Government Notification dated 9.8.2004. By exercising the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Assam Cooperative Societies Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “the Societies Act”), the Governor appointed the Director of Fisheries and the concerned Zonal Fishery Officers (within their jurisdictional area) as Registrar of Cooperative Societies for registering only the Fishery Cooperative Societies. On the basis of this Notification, the registration of the Dharnad Society was granted by the District Fishery Development Officer on 23.7.2009. 5. Thus when the source of power of the Zonal Fishery Officers to allow registration of Fishery Cooperatives can be traced to the Government Notification dated 9.8.2004 and the empowering notification is not challenged by the aggrieved challenger, I am of the opinion that the challenge to the registration at the instance of the respondent No.5 ought not to be entertained. In this context, it may also be noted that the M/s Dhubri Society (appellant) too applied for registration under the Government Notification dated 9.8.2004 and being a contender for the same dispensation, it must not lie in the mouth of the respondent No.5 to challenge a similar dispensation, granted to another applicant.” 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 5. The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.