ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioners in the present case are seeking quashing of the order dated 27.11.2018/21.12.2018 issued vide memo no.24/RL, dated 16.01.2019 under the signature of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bihar, Patna in Misc. Case No.34 of 2018. By the impugned order the Registrar, Co-operative Societies (respondent no.2) has declared the appointment of petitioner no.4 as Acting Secretary being wholly illegal and has directed the Ex-Secretary of the Society to hand over the charge to the elected Secretary Shivjee Sahani (respondent no.9). 3. It appears that the Misc. Dispute Case No.34 of 2018 was brought by the Society through its elected Secretary Shivjee Sahani and others for a direction to the Ex-Secretary to hand over the records of the Society and to restrain the petitioner no.4 Bholiya Devi from staking her claim as Acting Secretary of the Society. 4. Prior to filing of the Misc. Dispute Case No.34 of 2018 by respondent no.9, it appears that the District Cooperative Officer, Darbhanga had conducted an enquiry in the matter of dispute which has arisen in respect of the management of the Society. Since petitioner no.4 was staking her claim as Acting Secretary of the Society, she was called upon by the District Cooperative Officer, Darbhanga with all documents in support and after giving an opportunity to petitioner no.4 as also the respondent no.9, the District Co-operative Officer came to a conclusion that the dispute between the parties are required to be resolved by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies in exercise of his power under Section 48 of the Bihar Cooperative Societies Act, 1935. The order passed by the District Cooperative Officer, Darbhanga on 23.07.2018 has been brought on record by the respondent no.9 with his counter affidavit and has been marked as Annexure-R/9-D. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.9 has clarified that this enquiry was initiated by the District Cooperative Officer, Darbhanga on the basis of a complaint lodged by petitioner no.4 but once the District Co-operative Officer passed an order as contained in Annexure- R/9-D, the petitioner no.4 did not file any application under Section 48 of the District Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 before the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies. 6. In Misc. Dispute Case No.34 of 2018 which was brought by the private respondent no.9, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies has considered the submissions of the parties. 6. In Misc. Dispute Case No.34 of 2018 which was brought by the private respondent no.9, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies has considered the submissions of the parties. It is not in dispute that the respondent no.9 is an elected Secretary of the Society but against him the contention of petitioner no.4 was that he has acquired disqualification in view of the order dated 10.10.2017 passed by the learned Magistrate in Complaint Case No.1061 of 2017 by which while taking cognizance for the offences under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code the respondent no.9 has been summoned. The submission of petitioner no.4, before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies was that as soon as the order taking cognizance was passed and the respondent no.9 was summoned, by virtue of coming into play of Rule 23(1)(f) of the Co-operative Societies Rules, 1959, respondent no.9 cannot continue as Secretary and the post of the Secretary fell vacant. 7. It was further contention of petitioner no.4 that in terms of provisions contained in the bye-laws of the cooperative society, the vacant post of Secretary has to be filled up by the remaining members of the managing committee and the person so appointed as Acting Secretary would continue till the holding of the next annual meeting. It is her submission that she has been appointed as Acting Secretary in accordance with the byelaws. On these two grounds, the petitioner no.4 opposed the Misc. Dispute Case No.34 of 2018, but ultimately Registrar, Co-operative Societies came to a conclusion that the order taking cognizance cannot be said to have been passed in the matter of a complaint relating to a transaction of the co-operative society and has further held that the appointment of the petitioner no.4 as Acting Secretary of the Society is wholly illegal. 8. 8. The findings recorded by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies in the impugned order are quoted hereunder for a ready reference: – ^^mHk; i{k ds fo}ku vfèkoDrkx.k dh lquokbZ] ftyk lgdkfjrk inkfèkdkjh] njHkaxk ds izfrosnu rFkk vfHkys[k voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd izklafxd ekeyk eq[; :i ls uofuokZfpr inèkkjdksa dks lfefr vfHkys[kksa dk izHkkj gLrkarj.k ugha djus rFkk fuokZfpr lfpo ,oa fuokZfpr izcaèkdkfj.kh dh vkèkh ls vfèkd vofèk vo'ks"k jgrs dkepykÅ ea=h dh fu;qfDr dj fy, tkus ls lacafèkr gSA tgk¡ rd dkepykÅ ea=h dh fu;qfDr dj fy, tkus dk iz'u gS rks Li"Vr% izklafxd tkys iz[k.M eRL;thoh lg;ksx lfefr fyñ] tkys] njHkaxk dk fuokZpu fnukad 29-06-17 dks lEiUu gksus rFkk fuokZfpr izcaèkdkfj.kh dh vkèkh ls vfèkd vofèk vo'ks"k jgus ds vkyksd esa fcgkj lgdkjh lfefr;k¡ vfèkfu;e] 1935 dh èkkjk&14¼9½ ds vkèkkj ij fdlh Hkh izdkj dh fjfDr dks fcgkj jkT; fuokZpu izkfèkdkj }kjk mi&fuokZpu ls gh Hkjk tkuk pkfg, Fkk] ftlds vkyksd esa izklafxd lfefr esa dkepykÅ ea=h dh fu;qfDr dks voSèk ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA blds vfrfjDr tgk¡ rd izfri{k dh vksj ls fuokZfpr ea=h] Jh f'koth lguh ds fo:) laKku fy, tkus ds vkyksd esa muds vius in ls Lor% inP;qr gks tkus lacaèkh mBk, x, fcanq dk iz'u gS rks izklafxd Complaint Case No. 1061/2017 ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd mDr vfHk;ksx i= esa vfHk;ksxh }kjk Lo;a Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS fd izklafxd flejkSyh rkykc dh cankscLrh muds i{k esa fnukad 01-07-12 ls 30-07-19 rd Fkh] ftls muds i{k esa gh jgus nsus ds fy, rFkkdfFkr :i ls ea=h Jh f'koth lguh }kjk 15]000@& :i;s dh ek¡x dh xbZ tcfd Li"V gS fd eRL;thoh lg;ksx lfefr dh ubZ fuokZfpr izcaèkdkfj.kh ds xBu ds mijkar Hkh lfefr ds lkFk iwoZ ls cankscLr tydjksa ds iV~Vsnkj lnL;ksa esa ifjoÙkZu ugha djus lacaèkh fuxZr funs'k dk vuqikyu n`ढ+rkiwoZd djus lacaèkh funs'k fuxZr ,oa izlkfjr gSA blds ckotwn vfHk;ksxh }kjk muds i{k esa iwoZ ls fuxZr cankscLrh dks cus jgus nsus ds vkèkkj ij fuokZfpr lfpo }kjk jkf'k dh ek¡x fd, tkus ds vkyksd esa jkf'k miyCèk djk fn;k tkuk lansgkLin izrhr gksrk gSA blds vfrfjDr izklafxd laKku vkns'k esa Hkh ek=k vkbZñihñlhñ dh èkkjk&323 ,oa 504 ds rgr~ laKku fy;k tkuk mfYyf[kr gS] u fd tydj cankscLrh lacaèkh ekeys esa Bxh vFkok /kks[ksckth lacaèkh ekeys esaA rnuqlkj izfri{k ds i{k ls erfHkUu gksrs gq, izFke i{k }kjk mBk, x, fcanqvksa dks ;Fkksfpr ikrs gq, izfroknh Jherh Hkksfy;k nsoh dks izklafxd lfefr dk dkepykÅ ea=h fu;qDr fd, tkus dks voSèk ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk iwoZ inèkkjdksa dks Jh f'koth lguh] fuokZfpr lfpo] tkys iz[k.M eRL;thoh lg;ksx lfefr fyñ] tkys njHkaxk dks lHkh lfefr vfHkys[kkfn dk izHkkj vfoyEc lkSaius dk funs'k fn;k tkrk gSA ftyk lgdkfjrk inkfèkdkjh] njHkaxk }kjk rRlacaèkh dkjZokbZ izfØ;kèkhu jguk Hkh izfrosfnr gSA rn~uqlkj mUgsa vko';d fofèklaxr dkjZokbZ djrs gq, vfoyEc izHkkj gLrkarj.k lacaèkh dkjZokbZ iw.kZ djkus dk funs'k fn;k tkrk gSA mijksDr vkns'k ds lkFk bl okn dk fuLrkj fd;k tkrk gSA lHkh lacafèkrksa dks lwfpr djsaA gñ@& fucaèkd] lg;ksx lfefr;k¡A 9. In the aforementioned background of facts, learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the impugned order as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application. It is his submission that the Registrar, Co-operative Societies has erred in coming to a conclusion that the cognizance has not been taken in respect of a transaction related to the business of the co-operative society. Learned counsel has further submitted that in terms of the bye-laws, the post of Secretary has been filled up by the members of the managing committee, thus no fault may be found with the appointment of petitioner no.4 as Acting Secretary of the Society. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent no.9 has opposed the writ application and according to him the findings recorded by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies are based on reasons. It is submitted that the petitioners have moved this Court in a writ of certiorari and it is well settled in law that while considering a writ of certiorari this Court does not sit in appeal over the order passed by the administrative or statutory bodies. It is submitted that in the present case a criminal case has been lodged by one of the settlees who has alleged that the respondent no.9 took bribe amounting to Rs. 15,000/- for allowing the complainant to continue with the Jalkar allotted to him. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies has after going through the allegations made in the complaint petition found that the complainant has himself admitted that the pond in question has been settled in favour of the complainant for the period 01.07.2012 to 30.07.2019. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies has, therefore, held that once the pond was settled in favour of the complainant and there is already an order issued that earlier settlement shall not be interfered with by the new managing committee, the allegation that the respondent no.9 had demanded a sum of Rs.15,000/- to allow the complainant to continue with the settlement seems to be suspicious. The Registrar has also found that the cognizance has been taken under Section 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code only and no cognizance has been taken for any alleged act of fraud or cheating relating to any transaction with the Society. He has thus found that the order taking cognizance cannot be said to have been passed in a matter relating to a transaction of the cooperative society. He has thus found that the order taking cognizance cannot be said to have been passed in a matter relating to a transaction of the cooperative society. Learned counsel has thus submitted that the reasons provided by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies cannot be said to be perversed and need not be interfered with by this Court. 11. Learned counsel has further submitted that so far as the provision of bye-laws providing for appointment of an Acting President or Secretary is concerned, the same is now in the teeth of the amended provision of Bihar Cooperative Societies Act and Rules whereunder any vacant post may be filled up only through bye-election. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the writ application has no merit and it is fit to be dismissed. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents as also on perusal of the records, this Court finds that admittedly the respondent no.9 is an elected Secretary of the Cooperative Society. The petitioner no.4 has upon herself assumed that by virtue of the order taking cognizance and issuance of summon against the respondent no.9, by operation of law the post of the Secretary has fallen vacant and in terms of the provisions of the bye-laws an Acting Secretary may be appointed. 13. At first instance, this Court finds that once a complaint was lodged by the respondent no.4 before the District Co-operative Officer in this regard and the District Co-operative Officer made it clear that such dispute may be resolved only by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies in exercise of his power under Section 48 of the Bihar Cooperative Societies Act, 1935, the petitioner no.4, if at all was vigilant towards her rights, could have approached the Registrar, Cooperative Society under Section 48, but she did not file any dispute before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. Rather it is respondent no.9 who filed an application under Section 48 and sought a direction towards handing over the documents of the co-operative society and to restrain the petitioner no.4 from staking her claim as acting Secretary. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies has after going through the materials on the record, in the opinion of this Court rightly distinguished the case of the respondent no.9 saying that no cognizance of an offence of fraud or cheating in relation to any transaction of cooperative society has been taken by a court of law. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies has after going through the materials on the record, in the opinion of this Court rightly distinguished the case of the respondent no.9 saying that no cognizance of an offence of fraud or cheating in relation to any transaction of cooperative society has been taken by a court of law. Cognizance has been taken only under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. It has to be kept in mind that allegation has been made by a settlee with regard to a demand of bribe of Rs.15,000/-, but no prima-facie material could be produced by him before learned Magistrate to substantiate his allegation with regard to demand of bribe, therefore the learned Magistrate has not taken cognizance of any offence of cheating, fraud or attempt to extort any money from the settlee in relation to any transaction with the Society. This being the position, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies has rightly found that the case would not be covered under Rule 23(1) )(f) of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Rules, 1959. 14. So far as the question as to whether any acting Secretary may be appointed in terms of the bye-laws, on the face of the amended provision of Section 14(9) of the Bihar Cooperative Societies Act, 1935, this Court would have no hesitation in recording that any provision of the bye-laws coming in conflict with Section 14(9) of the Bihar Cooperative Societies Act, 1935 cannot operate and cannot be given effect to. Section 14(9) specifically provides that all vacancies shall be filled up by the Bihar State Election Authority through a byeelection. If the statute provides for a particular mode to fill up the vacant post, no other mode may be provided by the byelaws. The case of the respondent no.9 is that bye-laws has not been amended after the year 2013 and, therefore, for the present now it is in conflict with the Section 14(9) of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935. 15. Since this Court agrees with the view taken by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies on the very first issue that the cognizance in this case is not relating to a transaction of the society, the Rule 23(1)(f) shall not be attracted and respondent no.9 cannot be said to have been ceased to be an elected Secretary of the Society, no further discussion would be required on the second aspect of the matter. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity with the impugned order. 16. This writ application has, thus, no merit. It is dismissed accordingly.