ORAL JUDGMENT : This batch of writ applications have been heard together with consent of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners as also learned Advocate General and learned Senior Counsel representing the respondents. All these matters are being disposed off by this common judgement. Petitioners in all these writ applications are primarily aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the second part of the order as contained in Memo No. 6349 dated 05.07.2019 issued under the signature of the Deputy Registrar (Cane), Co-operative Societies, Bihar Patna. Memo No. 6349 dated 05.07.2019 (Annexure ‘2’ to C.W.J.C. No. 14396 of 2019) which has been taken as a lead case. On the last date when these matters were taken for consideration, after noticing the submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners as also learned counsel representing the respondents this Court took note of their respective submissions and taking a prima-facie view passed an interim order directing the respondents to maintain status quo as on the date (30.07.2019) on which the order was passed. In order to appreciate the controversies it would be appropriate to reproduce the order dated 30.07.2019 as under:- “These cases have been tagged on the request of learned senior counsel representing the parties as they seek to challenge a common order as contained in Memo No. 6349 dated 05.07.2019 (Annexure ‘2’) issued by the Deputy Registrar (Cane) Cooperative Societies, Bihar, Patna. It is the common contention of learned senior counsel representing the parties that the second part of the order by which in exercise of his self-claimed power under Section 44AQ(6) of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1935”), the Deputy Registrar has notified under order of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies that all those applicants who could not get declared the membership in terms of Rule 7(1) of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules of 1959”) are declared members of the PACS is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. It is submitted that the mode and manner in which a member is to be inducted in the PACS is laid down under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1959. It is submitted that the mode and manner in which a member is to be inducted in the PACS is laid down under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1959. The Rule of 1959 specifically provides that an application for membership has to be applied in Form ‘V’ and then such applications are to be considered by the Managing Committee of the Society and the decision of the Committee thereon is required to be communicated to the applicant within 15 days from of receipt of the application and where the application is rejected the reasons therefor are to be communicated. In terms of Rule 7 (e), if no decision is communicated to the applicant within the period specified in Clause (d) of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 7 within 15 days, it shall be deemed that the application has been accepted and the applicant has been admitted to the membership of the Society. A person aggrieved by the rejection of his application has a right to prefer an appeal to the Registrar in terms of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 7. So far as Section 44AQ of the Act of 1935 is concerned, it is submitted that it relates to power of the Registrar to order liquidation of the societies and amalgamation of serving societies. Sub-section (6) of Section 44AQ provides that every family residing within the local limits of new society determined under sub-section (2) shall be represented by at least one adult member of the family who shall be a normal or associate member of the society and shall be entitled to a right of voting if he pays a membership fee and may become a full fledged member of the society if he purchases at least one share of the society and further he shall be entitled to receive loan therefrom and shall also be eligible to hold any elected post of the society. Learned senior counsel submits that by no stretch of imagination subsection (6) of Section 44AQ of the Act of 1935 confers any power upon the Registrar, Co-operative Societies to suo motu declare an applicant member of a society. It is submitted that in absence of there being a statutory power vested in the Registrar to that effect, the declaration made in the impugned order that all such applicants who have not received declared membership shall become a member of the society is wholly without jurisdiction. It is submitted that in absence of there being a statutory power vested in the Registrar to that effect, the declaration made in the impugned order that all such applicants who have not received declared membership shall become a member of the society is wholly without jurisdiction. Referring to the propositions of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a criteria to a statute must act within the four corners of a statute. In this case since the Registrar, Co-operative Societies has not been conferred with any power to declare an applicant member of the society automatically, it is submitted that the second part of the impugned order is liable to be held bad in law and be accordingly quashed. . Although in this case no counter affidavit has been filed but in CWJC No. 14399/2019 a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 1, 2 & 3 sworn by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies. All that has been said with regard to the powers of the Registrar to issue such orders as have been issued in the present case, this court finds that in paragraph ‘19’ of the counter affidavit following statements have been made: “19. That so far as the question of authority and jurisdiction of the present respondent in issuance of the impugned order is concerned, it is submitted that the Block Development Officer, District Cooperative Officer and Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies are empowered under Rule 7 (1) (a) (b) (c) and Rule 7(4) of the Bihar Cooperative Societies Rules, 1959 to pass order pertaining to membership to such PACS which are binding on it. But when it was observed that required outcome in membership is not coming on account of apathy, the present respondent passed the order impugned.” Yesterday when these matters were mentioned being on the list, this Court wanted to know as to whether any election has been notified, the Court was informed that no election has been notified as the voter list itself is under preparation. The petitioners had raised a grievance that any voter list prepared on the basis of the direction of the Registrar as contained in Annexure ‘2’ (second part) would not be in accordance with law. The petitioners had raised a grievance that any voter list prepared on the basis of the direction of the Registrar as contained in Annexure ‘2’ (second part) would not be in accordance with law. Today, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners have informed this Court that perhaps prompted by the query made by this Court yesterday, in the mid night a notification bearing no. 118 dated 29th May, 2019 has been uploaded by the Bihar State Election Authority notifying the election of the societies. The schedule, however, provided, therein shows that the last date for publication of voter list is 03.08.2019. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners have informed that earlier a direction was there to prepare the voter list as on the voter list taking the cut off date of membership as on 30th June, 2019 but now taking note of the impugned order (Annexure ‘2’) the last date for publication of voter list has been fixed on 03.08.2019 with a sole intention to take into account all those applicants who stand inducted as a member by virtue of the direction of the last part of the impugned order as contained in Annexure ‘2’ to the writ application. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bihar State Election Authority submits that earlier a cut off date was extended from 30.06.2019 to 15.07.2019 on the request of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies vide memo dated 10.07.2019. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel representing the State as well as the State Election Authority, this Court is prima-facie of the considered opinion that the second part of the order as contained in Memo No. 33649 dated 05.07.2019 (Annexure ‘2’) cannot be said to be in accordance with law. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel representing the State as well as the State Election Authority, this Court is prima-facie of the considered opinion that the second part of the order as contained in Memo No. 33649 dated 05.07.2019 (Annexure ‘2’) cannot be said to be in accordance with law. Section 44AQ (6) under which the Registrar, Co-operative Societies has exercised his power reads as under: 44.AQ (6) Every family residing within the local limits of the new society determined under [Subs by idid][subsection (2) shall be represented by at least one adult member of the family who shall be a normal or associate member of the society and shall be entitled to a right of voting if he pays a 3[membership fee] and may become a full-fledged member of the society if he purchases at least one share of the society and he shall be entitled to receive loan therefrom and shall also be eligible to hold any elective post of the society.” The provisions relating to admission of a member in the society, consideration of the application for membership, rejection thereof and the circumstances under which a Block Development Officer or Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies or District Co-operative Societies may exercise their power to induct a member of society are all provided under Rule 7 and its various sub-Rules which are quoted hereunder for a ready reference: “7. Admission to Membership. – Subs. By letter No. 14/Legal 51/89&2829 dated 2.9.89 [(1) (a) Every person desiring admission to membership of a registered society shall apply in form V. (b) The Secretary of the Society or any person duly authorised by him in this behalf shall immediately grant a receipt for the application in the form at the foot of form V. (c) In case the Secretary of the Society or any such person as aforesaid does not receive the application or grant a receipt for it, the applicant may submit his application to the Block Development Officer or the Assistant Registrar or Cooperative Societies or the District Cooperative Officer, who shall immediately grant him a receipt for the application in the prescribed form, and shall at once send the same to the society concerned. (d) The application shall be considered by a Managing Committee of the Society and the decision of the Committee thereon shall be communicated to the applicant within 15 days of receipt of the application and, where the application is rejected, with reasons therefor. (e) If no decision is communicated to the applicant within the period specified above. It shall be deemed that the application has been accepted and the applicant has been admitted to the membership of the Society.] (2) A person whose application for admission to membership has been rejected by the managing committee may, within sixty days of the communication of the decision to him appeal to the Registrar whose decision shall be final. (3) On payment of the admission fee and share money as prescribed in the bye-laws, a member shall be entitled to all the rights and shall be subject to all the liabilities of a member. [Ins by Notifn. No. 7340 dated 26.11.2008] (4) “Notwithstanding anything contrary contained in this rule or by-lays of a Primary Agriculture Credit Society, if any person applied for membership of such a society with a declaration to the Block Development Officer or Assistant Registrar, Cooperative societies or District Cooperative Officer that- (a) he fulfills the criteria for attaining membership of such a society, (b) no other member of his family is a member of the society and (c) he has applied for membership to the managing committee of such society and has not been admitted as a member, the concerned Block Development Officer of Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies or District Co-operative Officer, as the case may be, shall order such person to be made a member of the said society.” A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions would show that the Rule duly provides the mode and manner in which a member is to be inducted. Rule nowhere confers powers on the Registrar to make a declaration in the nature it has been done ini the second part of the impugned order dated 05.07.2019. Mr. Rule nowhere confers powers on the Registrar to make a declaration in the nature it has been done ini the second part of the impugned order dated 05.07.2019. Mr. P.K. Sahi, learned Senior Counsel representing one of the petitioners in the batch of cases has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji reported in A.I.R. (39) 1952 Supreme Court 16 to contend that a public authority must act in accordance with the powers vested in them and they cannot play fast and loose with the powers. This Court finds substance in the submission of learned Senior Counsel given on the proposition of law that a public authority such as Registrar, Co-operative Societies cannot assume upon himself a power which is not vested in him by the statute. These are the observations of the Court prima-facie on the basis of the materials which have been placed today in course of hearing. Although on the basis of the stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit as indicated above, these writ applications should have been disposed off, however, Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned AC to GA 13 who appears in C.W.J.C. No. 14402 of 2019 submits that some further time may be granted to the State respondents to file counter affidavit in the other cases as well. Taking note of this, the cases are being fixed under the same heading on 8th of August, 2019. In the meantime, the operation of the impugned order insofar as it directs that all such applicants eligible for membership who have not obtained the membership on their own are declared members of the society is hereby stayed. This Court is of the considered opinion that even though, normally the Court does not interfere with the election, in a given case like the present one where the issue of finalization of voter list is still open and the voter list is yet to be finalized, the hurried notification sensing the observation of this Court would come in the way of the Court exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the respondents to maintain the status quo as on today. List accordingly.” During pendency of the writ applications a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 7 in C.W.J.C. No. 14396 of 2019. List accordingly.” During pendency of the writ applications a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 7 in C.W.J.C. No. 14396 of 2019. The main contesting respondents i.e. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have filed a counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit in C.W.J.C. No. 14399 of 2019 (Piraunta Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. (PACS) Vs. The State of Bihar), therefore, the stand of Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are reflected in their counter affidavit available in C.W.J.C. No. 14399 of 2019. In some of the writ applications, Intervention Applications have also been filed. The proposed Intervenors are the persons who are interested in contesting the writ applications. This Court had occasion to record a prima-facie view on the request of the proposed Intervenors, yesterday and what have been found by this Court are recorded in the order dated 26.08.2019. Today once again learned Senior Counsel Chitranjan Sinha and Mr. P.N. Sahi together with the learned Advocates on record representing the proposed Intervenors have made submissions in their respective cases seeking to allow the proposed Intervention. In course of submissions, however, learned Senior Counsel for the proposed Intervenors could not demonstrate as to how their interest is involved in the present batch of cases. Further as the argument progressed and the stand of learned Advocate General were put-forth before this Court, it became all the more clear that the proposed Intervention Application is not required to be allowed. Finding that what have been noticed by this Court in its order dated 26.08.2019 have not been contested and no other independent reason has been shown to allow the Intervention Applications, those are hereby rejected. Now coming to the contentions of learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners as also learned counsel who have argued in other writ applications, this Court finds that apart from reiterating their submissions as recorded in the order dated 30.07.2019 they have further extended their arguments on the strength of some judicial pronouncements making a submission that in the present case the impugned order has been passed at the instance of Registrar though issued under the signature of the Deputy Registrar (Cane) without there being any authority vested in the Registrar to pass such order. Their contention is that the Registrar, Co-operative Societies being creature of the Statute must act within the fourcorners of the Statute. Their contention is that the Registrar, Co-operative Societies being creature of the Statute must act within the fourcorners of the Statute. It is submitted that so far as the issue of membership of the PACS is concerned, Rule 7 extensively provides the procedures required to be followed for admitting a person to the membership of the PACS and if the Statute and the Rule framed thereunder provide a thing to be done in a particular manner, there is no reason as to why the Registrar, Co-operative Societies would take upon himself/herself a power not vested in him/her. It is submitted that in this case what has been done is that the Registrar, Co-operative Societies has usurped a power not vested in him/her by the Statute and in the process has taken away the powers conferred upon the Managing Committee of the PACS to consider an application for admission of a member to the PACS. It is submitted that the impugned action if allowed to exist would result in rendering the entire Rule 7 of the Rules of 1959 redundant in the eye of law. Learned Senior Counsel has relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dipak Babaria & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in (2014)3 SCC 502 with special emphasis on Paragraph 61 and 64 of the judgment. Paragraph 61 and 64 are, thus, quoted hereunder for a ready reference :- “61. It is well settled that where the statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner. This proposition of law laid down in Taylor Vs. Taylor (1875) 1 Ch D 426,431 was first adopted by the Judicial Committee in Nazir Ahmed Vs. King Emperor reported in AIR 1936 PC 253 and then followed by a bench of three Judges of this Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh Vs. State of Vindhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1954 SC 322 . This proposition was further explained in paragraph 8 of State of U.P. Vs. Singhara Singh by a bench of three Judges reported in AIR 1964 SC 358 in the following words:- “8. The rule adopted in Taylor v. Taylor is well recognised and is founded on sound principle. State of Vindhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1954 SC 322 . This proposition was further explained in paragraph 8 of State of U.P. Vs. Singhara Singh by a bench of three Judges reported in AIR 1964 SC 358 in the following words:- “8. The rule adopted in Taylor v. Taylor is well recognised and is founded on sound principle. Its result is that if a statute has conferred a power to do an act and has laid down the method in which that power has to be exercised, it necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in any other manner than that which has been prescribed. The principle behind the rule is that if this were not so, the statutory provision might as well not have been enacted….” This proposition has been later on reiterated in Chandra Kishore Jha Vs. Mahavir Prasad reported in 1999 (8) SCC 266 , Dhananjaya Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2001 (4) SCC 9 and Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited vs. Essar Power Limited reported in 2008 (4) SCC 755 . * * * * 64.That apart it has to be examined whether the Government had given sufficient reasons for the order it passed, at the time of passing such order. The Government must defend its action on the basis of the order that it has passed, and it cannot improve its stand by filing subsequent affidavits as laid down by this Court long back in Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji reported in AIR 1952 SC 16 in the following words:- “Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.” This proposition has been quoted with approval in paragraph 8 by a Constitution Bench in Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner reported in 1978 (1) SCC 405 wherein Krishna Iyer, J. has stated as follows:- “8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out.” Further learned senior counsel has relied upon another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Thalappal Service Cooperative Bank Limited & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. reported in (2013) 16 SCC 82. Paragraph 20, 21, 22 and 23 on which reliance has been placed are as under:- “20. Societies are, of course, subject to the control of the statutory authorities like Registrar, Joint Registrar, the Government, etc. but cannot be said that the State exercises any direct or indirect control over the affairs of the society which is deep and all pervasive. Supervisory or general regulation under the statute over the co-operative societies, which are body corporate does not render activities of the body so regulated as subject to such control of the State so as to bring it within the meaning of the “State” or instrumentality of the State. Above principle has been approved by this Court in S.S. Rana v. Registrar, Coop. Societies (2006) 11 SCC 634 . In that case this Court was dealing with the maintainability of the writ petition against the Kangra Central Co- operative Society Bank Limited, a society registered under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1968. After examining various provisions of the H.P. Cooperative Societies Act this Court held as follows: “9. It is not in dispute that the Society has not been constituted under an Act. Its functions like any other cooperative society are mainly regulated in terms of the provisions of the Act, except as provided in the bye-laws of the Society. The State has no say in the functions of the Society. Membership, acquisition of shares and all other matters are governed by the bye-laws framed under the Act. The terms and conditions of an officer of the cooperative society, indisputably, are governed by the Rules. The State has no say in the functions of the Society. Membership, acquisition of shares and all other matters are governed by the bye-laws framed under the Act. The terms and conditions of an officer of the cooperative society, indisputably, are governed by the Rules. Rule 56, to which reference has been made by Mr Vijay Kumar, does not contain any provision in terms whereof any legal right as such is conferred upon an officer of the Society. 10. It has not been shown before us that the State exercises any direct or indirect control over the affairs of the Society for deep and pervasive control. The State furthermore is not the majority shareholder. The State has the power only to nominate one Director. It cannot, thus, be said that the State exercises any functional control over the affairs of the Society in the sense that the majority Directors are nominated by the State. For arriving at the conclusion that the State has a deep and pervasive control over the Society, several other relevant questions are required to be considered, namely, (1) How was the Society created? (2) Whether it enjoys any monopoly character? (3) Do the functions of the Society partake to statutory functions or public functions? and (4) Can it be characterised as public authority? 11. Respondent 2, the Society does not answer any of the aforementioned tests. In the case of a non-statutory society, the control thereover would mean that the same satisfies the tests laid down by this Court in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi. [See Zoroastrian Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Distt. Registrar, Coop. Societies (Urban).] 12. It is well settled that general regulations under an Act, like the Companies Act or the Cooperative Societies Act, would not render the activities of a company or a society as subject to control of the State. Such control in terms of the provisions of the Act are meant to ensure proper functioning of the society and the State or statutory authorities would have nothing to do with its day-to-day functions.” 21. We have, on facts, found that the Co-operative Societies, with which we are concerned in these appeals, will not fall within the expression “State” or “instrumentalities of the State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and hence not subject to all constitutional limitations as enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. We have, on facts, found that the Co-operative Societies, with which we are concerned in these appeals, will not fall within the expression “State” or “instrumentalities of the State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and hence not subject to all constitutional limitations as enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. We may, however, come across situations where a body or organization though not a State or instrumentality of the State, may still satisfy the definition of public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act, an aspect which we may discuss in the later part of this Judgment. Constitutional provisions and Cooperative autonomy: 22. The rights of the citizens to form co-operative societies voluntarily, is now raised to the level of a fundamental right and State shall endeavour to promote their autonomous functioning. The Parliament, with a view to enhance public faith in the co-operative institutions and to insulate them to avoidable political or bureaucratic interference brought in Constitutional (97th Amendment) Act, 2011, which received the assent of the President on 12.01.2012, notified in the Gazette of India on 13.01.2012 and came into force on 15.02.2012. The Constitutional amendment has been effected to encourage economic activities of co-operatives which in turn help progress of rural India. Societies are expected not only to ensure autonomous and democratic functioning of co-operatives, but also accountability of the management to the members and other share stakeholders. 23. Article 19 protects certain rights regarding freedom of speech. By virtue of above amendment under Article 19(1)(c) the words “cooperative societies” are added. Article 19(1)(c) reads as under: “19(1)(c) – All citizens shall have the right to form associations or unions or co-operative societies”. “19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.- (1) All citizens shall have the right- * * * (c) to form associations or unions or cooperative societies.” Article 19(1)(c), therefore, guarantees the freedom to form an association, unions and cooperative societies. “19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.- (1) All citizens shall have the right- * * * (c) to form associations or unions or cooperative societies.” Article 19(1)(c), therefore, guarantees the freedom to form an association, unions and cooperative societies. Right to form a co-operative society is, therefore, raised to the level of a fundamental right, guaranteed under the Constitution of India.” Learned senior counsel has then submitted with reference to Article 243ZI of the Constitution of India that the said Article was introduced by the 97th Constitutional Amendment in order to provide for making a law with respect to the incorporation, regulation and winding up of the cooperative societies based on the principles of voluntary formation, democratic member control, member-economic participation and autonomous functioning. This was simultaneously brought in the Constitution of India with Article 43-B which provides for promotion of the cooperative societies. It is submitted that what is being done is that very democratic system provided under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1959 whereunder a society has been conferred with the power to consider an application for membership is being taken away. In order to support his argument, learned senior counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Rana Vs. Registrar, Coop. Societies & Anr. reported in (2006) 11 SCC 634 and Harender Narain Banker Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1985 PLJR 1078 HC (paragraph 13 and 14). Mr. Sandip Kumar, learned counsel who has argued the matter in CWJC No.14399 of 2019 has taken this Court through some of the pleadings particularly the statements made in his rejoinder wherein attention of this Court has been drawn towards various paragraphs particular paragraph VI which reads as under:- “Huge instances are available in the case of online application that one or few persons became nominee for all applicants in PACS although the person shown as nominee is not legal heir of applicant. The person recommending the form is himself not the member of the said PACS. Applications are in the name of dead persons, outsider and existing members. There is a case that even the forms have not been forwarded to the society or forwarded but dead line of 15 days not lapsed. The person recommending the form is himself not the member of the said PACS. Applications are in the name of dead persons, outsider and existing members. There is a case that even the forms have not been forwarded to the society or forwarded but dead line of 15 days not lapsed. But, now in terms of the impugned order all became member and their membership fee have been deposited by the State Cooperative Bank at the direction of the Government. For example, in the case of the deponent, the society itself enrolled 400 new members who applied before the society. Under the on-line scheme, 172 forms were forwarded, out of which 8 were admitted and remaining 164 were rejected on different grounds and decision to this effect was communicated. The Block Co-operative Extension Officer or the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, as per knowledge of the deponent not differed with the finding of the society. But now in terms of the impugned order, all 164 persons whose case was rejected became members. Even, an additional 35 names have been added whose application forms have never been served to the society.” Learned counsel has thus submitted that he has provided some example to support his submissions that if the impugned order is allowed to exist it will render the provisions of the Rules of 1959 redundant in the eye of law. He has placed before this Court the procedures prescribed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies in memo no.8017 dated 21.09.2016 for purpose of admission of a person to the membership of the PACS. He has placed before this Court the procedures prescribed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies in memo no.8017 dated 21.09.2016 for purpose of admission of a person to the membership of the PACS. The relevant part of the guideline as contained in Annexure-1 to CWJC No.14396 of 2019 are reproduced hereunder:- ^^iSDlksa ds lnL;rk gsrq vkWuykbZu vkosnu dh izfØ;k %& iSDlksa esa lnL;rk izkIr djus gsrq Rofjr dkjZokbZ rFkk ikjnf'kZr ds n`f"Vdks.k ls foHkkx ,d lkVos;j fodflr fd;k x;k gSA bl lkVos;j dk iz;ksx dj bPNqd O;fDr iSDl dh lnL;rk vkosnu vkuykbu dj ldrs gSaA iz;ksx ds rkSj ij izkjaHk esa oS'kkyh ftyk esa ykyxat iz[kaM ,ao ukyank ftyk ds uqjljk; iz[kaM esa bls fØ;kfUor fd;k tk jgk gSa] ftls 'kh?kz gh lHkh iz[kaMks esa fØ;kfUor fd;k tk;sxkA bl lkVos;j ds ek/;e ls bPNqd O;fDr fuEu izfØ;k dk ikyu dj iSDl dk lnL;rk izkIr dj ldrs gSa %& iSDlksa esa vkWuykbZu lnL; cuus gsrq izfdz;k %& ,- vkWuykbZu vkosnu djus gsrq vkosnd ds ikl oS| igpku i=] vkoklh; izek.k&i=] Lo;a dk gLrk{kj rFkk vuq'kalk djus okys nks lnL;ksa dk gLrk{kj dk LdSu dkWih ¼50 ds-ch- ls de½ gksuk vko';d gSA ch- fdlh iSDl dk lnL; cuus ds fy, vkosnd dks bl lkVos;j ij loZizFke fuca/ku djkuk vfuok;Z gksxkA blds fy, fuEu izfdz;k viuk;h tk;sxhA 1- vkosnd loZizFke http://mobapp.binnic.in/EPACS Member/login aspzx ij tkdj U;w jftLVsª'ku ij fDyd djsaxsA 2- u;k jftLVªs'ku ij fDyd djus ls eksckbZy ij fcUnqokj ?kks"k.kk&i= iznf'kZr gksxk ftls flysDV dj ¼usDLkV½ cVu ij fDyd fd;k tk,xkA 3- ¼usDlV cVu½ ij fDyd djrs gq, flLVe ij fuca/ku izi= iznf'kZr gksxk ftls vkosnd }kjk iwjh oS| lwpuk ds lkFk Hkjrs gq, ¼jftLVj cVu½ fDyd fd;k tk,xkA 4- ¼jftLVj cVu½ fDyd gksrs gh vkosnd ij ,d ;wlj vkb-Mh- ,oa ikloMZ vkoafVr gksxkA ;g ;wlj vkbZ-Mh-,oa ikloMZ vkosnd ds eksckbZy ij Hkh lEizsf’kr gks tk,xkA vkosnd bldk fizaV Hkh fudky ldrk gS 5- mijksDr izfØ;k viukrs gq, vkosnd ¼fDyd fg;j Vw dksUVhU;w½ cVu ij fDyd djsxkA iSDl esa vkWuykbZu lnL; cukus gsrq fuEu izfØ;k viuk;h tk,xh %& 1- vkosnd vkoafVr ;wlj vkbZ-Mh- ,oa ikloMZ rFkk iznf'kZr dksM Mkydj ykWfxu ij fDyd djksxsA 2- eksckbZy ij psd fyLV ds lkFk ikap pj.kksa esa iSDl dh lnL;rk gsrq vkosnd i= iznf'kZr gksxk A vkosnd dks iznf'kZr funsZ'k ds vuqlkj vkosnu izi= Hkjk tk,xk rFkk viuk QksVks gLrk{kj rFkk oS| izek.k&i=ksa dh LdSu dkWih viyksM djrs gq, lcfeV cVu ij fDyd djsaxkA 3- vkosnd iw.kZ :i ls Hkjs vkosnu rFkk ?kks"k.kk i= dk fizaV fudky dj viuk gLrk{kj djsxs ,oa lacaf/kr dk;kZy; esa tek djsaxsA 4- vkosnd }kjk lefiZr vkWuykbZu vkosnu i= lacaf/kr ,-vkj-lh-,l-@ch-lh-bZ-vks- ds ek/;e ls iSDl dks gLrkarfjr fd;k tk,xkA 5- iSDl ds }kjk vkosnu oS| gksus ij vkosnd dks cSad esa izos'k 'kqYd rFkk 'ks;j 'kqYd tek djus ds fy;s ,l-,e-,l- }kjk lwfpr fd;k tk,xkA 6- iSDl ds )kjk vkosnu ij dksbZ dkjZokbZ ugha fd;s tkus ij vkosnu dks lacaf/kr ch-lh-bZ-vks- dks tkap ds fy;s vf/kd`r fd;k tk,xkA 7- ch-lh-bZ-vks- }kjk tkapksijkr vkosnu oS| ik;s tkus dh fLFkfr esa vkosnd dh cSad esa iSlk tek djus gsr ,l-,e-,l- }kjk lwfpr fd;k tk,xkA vxj ch-lh-bZ-vks- }kjk tkap esa vkosnu oS| ugh ik;k x;k gS rks ,slh fLFkfr esa dkj.k lfgr lwpuk ,-vkj-lh-,l- dks tkap ds fy;s laizsf”kr djsxk rFkk bldh lwpuk ,l-,e-,l- }kjk vkosnd dks nsxkA 8- ,-vkj-,l-lh- ds }kjk vkosnd oS| gksus ij vkosnd dks cSad esa iSlk tek djus ds fy, ,l-,e-,l- }kjk lwfpr fd;k tk,xkA vxj vkosnu oS| ugh ik;k x;k rks dkj.k lfgr vkosnd dks lwfpr fd;k tk,xkA 9- ih-,-lh-,l-@,-vkj-lh-,l-@ch-lh-b-vks- }kjk vkosnu dh tkap esa oS| ik;s tkus ij vkosnd }kjk cSad esa iSlk tek dj ikorh dks LdSu dj viyksM fd;k tk,xkA bl izdkj vkosnd lacaf/kr iSDl dk lnL; cu tk,xkA izpkj&izlkj loZizFke ;g vko';d gS fd iSDlksa ds izca/k lfefr ds in/kkjdksa izca/k lfefr ds lnL;ksa ,oa lgdkfjrk foHkkx ds inkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk iapk;r vuqe.My ,oa ftyk Lrj ij O;kid izpkj&izlkj fd;k tk;A izpkj izlkj gsrq fuEu izfØ;k,W viuk;h tk; %& 1- le;≤ ij iz[kaM ls jkT; Lrj rd lgdkfjrk lEesyuksa dk vk;kstu fd;k tk; ftlesa LFkkuh; tuizfrfuf/k;ksa fo'ks"kdj ftys ds izHkkjh ea=h ,oa LFkkuh; lkaln] fo/kk;d ,oa vU; tuizfrfuf/k;ksa dks Hkh vkeaf=r fd;k tk;A 2- iz[kaM ls ftyk Lrj rd gksfMZaXl iksLVj ,oa cSuj yxk;s tk;saA 3- iEiysV@gS.Mohy vkfn ds forj.k dh O;oLFkk djk;h tk;sA 4- txg&txg ij uqDdM+ ukVdksa dk vk;kstu fd;k tk;A 5- jsfM;ksa ,oa Vh-oh- ds ek/;e ls izpkj&izlkj djk;k tk;A 6- nSfud lekpkj i=ksa esa foKkiu izdk'ku dh O;oLFkk dh tk;A izlkj&izlkj gsrq iEiysV@gS.Mfoy@gksfMZaXl@lnL;rk gsrq vko';d vkosnu&i=] jlhn&cgh vkfn miyC/k djkus dh ftEesokjh lacaf/kr ftyk lgdkfjrk inkf/kdkjh dh gksaxhA blds fy, mUgsa vko';d jkf'k foHkkx }kjk miyC/k djk;h tk;sxhA vuqJo.k ,oa dk;ZUo;u lkFk gh bu lcksa ds vfrfjDr iSDl ds izca/k lfefr ds in/kkjdksa izca/k lfefr lnL;ksa ,oa lgdkfjrk foHkkx ds inkf/kdkfj;ksa dk ;g nkf;Ro gksxk fd oSls bPNqd O;fDr tks lfefr ds lnL; gksus dh ik=rk j[krs gks vkSj lEcaf/kr iSDl esa lnL;rk gsrq vkosnu fd;k gks] mUgsa vko';d :i ls ml iSDl dh lnL;rk iznku dh tk;A lkFk gh {ks= esa inLFkkfir lgdkfjrk inkf/kdkjh dk Hkh ;g dŸkZO; gksxk fd le;≤ ij {ks= esa Hkze.k dj oSls O;fDr;ksa dks tks vc rd fdlh dkj.ko'k iSDl dk lnL; ugha cu lds mUgsa lnL; cuus ds fy, izsfjr djsa lkFk gh tks lnL; cuus ds bPNqd gks] mUgsa vf/kfu;e ,oa fu;ekoyh dh tkudkfj;ksa ls gj laHko voxr djk;h tk;A fo'ks"kdj] efgykvksa dks lnL; cuus ds fy, mRizsfjr fd;k tk;A blds vfrfjDr budk ;g Hkh nkf;Ro gksxk fd iSDl esa lnL;rk gsrq izkIr vkosnuksa dks ladfyr dj bldh lwph ojh; inkf/kdkfj;ksa dks izsf"kr djsxs vuqeaMy ls ize.My Lrj rd inLFkkfir lgdkfjrk foHkkx ds inkf/kdkfj;ksa dk ;g nkf;Ro gksxk fd le;≤ ij bldk leh{kk fd;k tk;] rkfd iapk;r Lrj ij xfBr iSDlksa esa 'kr izfr'kr ifjokjksa dh Hkkxhnkjh lqfuf'pr gks ldsA** It is submitted that now the department is not following even its own guidelines and the procedures. On all these grounds, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel representing the petitioners in other writ applications have prayed for setting aside the second part of the memo no.6349 dated 05.07.2019. Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Mukesh Kumar learned counsel on record appears on behalf of the State respondents as well as the Bihar State Election Authority. Learned Advocate General has made a submission before this Court that the impugned order has been passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies in larger public interest. Referring to sub-rule (4) of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1959, learned Advocate General offered a submission that Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 7 makes the intention of the Legislatures clear inasmuch as apart from the mode provided under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 7, the Legislatures in their wisdom thought it just and proper to confer powers upon the Block Development Officer/Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies or District Cooperative Officer to consider an application for membership in the given circumstance an order that the applicant shall be made a member of the society. In course of argument, this Court called upon the learned Advocate General to make a submission as to whether the impugned order may be saved only by saying that it has been passed in larger public interest, if it is evident from the materials available on the record that the said order has been passed without following the procedures prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1959 and by an authority not vested with power to issue such order. Further the query was as to what is in the larger public interest, to abide by the Rule of law is a larger public interest or to do something de hors to the Rules of 1959 saying that the object sought to be achieved is pious so it is a larger public interest, therefore, it should be saved. In all fairness, learned Advocate General immediately submitted that to abide by the ‘Rule of law’ is in the larger public interest. In all fairness, learned Advocate General immediately submitted that to abide by the ‘Rule of law’ is in the larger public interest. At this stage, when this Court called upon the learned Advocate General to demonstrate from the provisions of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 read with Rules of 1959, the source of power to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies whereunder the impugned order could have been passed by giving a complete go-bye to the Rules, the learned Advocate General in a very unambiguous terms accepted the legal position and submitted that so far as the statutory power is concerned, he would admit that under the scheme of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies is not vested with any such power whereunder a declaration in the nature of the second part of the impugned order could have been made. The moment learned Advocate General accepted the legal position that no such power is vested with the Registrar, this Court called for a suggestion as to how to resolve this issue now. In view of what has transpired in further submissions, this Court comes to a conclusion that there is no dispute that the Registrar, Co-operative Societies could not have issued a declaration in the nature it has been done vide second part of the impugned order as contained in Annexure ‘2’ to the lead writ application. In order to take note of the second part of the impugned order the entire AnnexurePatna ‘2’ is extracted hereunder for a ready reference:- ^^funsZ'kkuqlkj iSDlksa dh lnL;rk gsrq vkWuykbZu vkosnu izkIr fd;k x;k gSA oSls lHkh vkosnu tks iSDlksa ds ikl 15 fnuksa ls vf/kd le; ls yafcr gS] fcgkj lgdkjh lkslkbZVh fu;ekoyh] 1959 ds fu;e 7¼1½ ds rgr Lor% lkslkbZVh ds lnL; gks pqds gSaA oSls lnL;rk ;ksX; vkosnd ftudks fcgkj lgdkjh lkslkbZVh fu;ekoyh] 1959 ds fu;e 7¼1½ ds rgr Lor% lnL;rk ugha izkIr gqbZ gS] fcgkj lgdkjh lkslkbZVh vf/kfu;e] 1935 dh /kkjk&44 d&Fk ¼6½ ,oa rr~lacaf/kr fu;ekoyh ds rgr lnL; ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA lacaf/kr ftyk lgdkfjrk inkf/kdkjh dks vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd Lor% lnL;rk izkIr ,oa lnL; ?kksf"kr vkosndksa dh lwph vfoyEc lgdkjh cSad@iSDlksa dks miyC/k djkuk lqfuf'pr djsaA ;g rRdky izHkko ls ykxw gksxkA** The second part of the impugned order shown in bold letters above is thus, wholly without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the second part by which a general declaration has been made by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies in the guise of exercise of power under Section 44AQ (6) of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder is hereby set aside. This Court would hasten to add that at this stage some grievance were also raised with regard to the first part of the order contained in memo no. 6349 dated 05.07.2019, however, very soon learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Advocate General gave up the discussions on the first part finding that the same is only in accordance with the provisions of law and it applies to the applications which were already pending with the PACS and in respect of which no decision was taken within the statutory period of fifteen days. It has been agreed at the Bar both by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Advocate General that in the given circumstance now it would only be just and proper to give three weeks time for submission of fresh applications by the eligible applicants for the membership of PACS of the Gram Panchayat in which he is residing. urther within the same period of three weeks i.e. upto 17.09.2019 all such applications which have already been submitted online and the hard copies with the signature of the applicants and other informations have been submitted in the office of the State respondents shall be transmitted to the concerned PACS for consideration. After three weeks from today i.e. from 18.09.2019, the Managing Committee of the PACS shall consider and take a decision on all the fresh applications and the online applications which are already submitted and will be transmitted to the PACS, within the prescribed period. Fifteen days statutory time will be available to the PACS to take a decision and issue communication of the same to the individual applicant by post with a copy of the intimation letter to be submitted with the Block Co-operative Extension Officer of the concerned Block simultaneously and in any case within two days from the date of taking of the decision by the Managing Committee of the PACS. The individual applicant may thereafter, seek their remedy in accordance with law. If the PACS fails to take a decision within the statutory period of 15 days, the consequences as contained in Rule 7 (1) (e) shall follow. The individual applicant may thereafter, seek their remedy in accordance with law. If the PACS fails to take a decision within the statutory period of 15 days, the consequences as contained in Rule 7 (1) (e) shall follow. After expiry of the statutory period of 15 days available to the PACS for taking a decision on the applications as stated above, the State Election Authority shall proceed to notify the programme for preparation of the voter list and finalization of the same, whereupon the steps for publication of the schedule of Election shall be taken and notified. All the writ applications are thus disposed off with the aforesaid observations and directions.