ORDER : These two writ petitions are filed by the respective member of two Societies, namely, Sogala Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society Limited (respondent No.3 in W.P. No.27313/2016) and Akkuru Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society Limited (respondent No.3 in W.P. No.24058/2016) seeking quashing of separate orders of even date i.e., 28.03.2016 (Annexure ‘B’ to the petitions) passed by the second respondent – Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Ramanagara SubDivision, Ramanagara. 2. Respondent No.3 in W.P. No.27313/2016, namely, Sogala Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Sogala Society’ for brevity) was floated to deliver to the financial needs of villagers residing in 13 villages viz., Sogala, Sogalapalya, Harokoppa, Nunnuru, Neraluru, V.G. Doddi, Garakahalli, Sadarahalli, Krishnapura, Ankushanahalli, A.V. Halli, Kalikere and Varadarahatti. Similarly, respondent No.3 in W.P. No.24058/2016 – Akkuru Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘Akkuru Society’) is catering to the financial needs of villagers residing in 9 villages viz., Akkur, AkkurHosahalli, Malagalu, Sulleri, Horohalli, Mengalli, Avverahalli, Mooli and Sadarahalli. It is stated that the aforesaid two Societies are registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. 3. Perusal of the impugned orders disclose that the common second respondent Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies has referred to the representations made by villagers of certain villages coming within the jurisdiction of the aforesaid two Societies seeking release of some of the villages so that they could float new Societies to cater to the financial needs of the villagers in the area. In that background, the second respondent has directed: Sogala Society to release four villages viz., A.V. Halli, Ankushanahalli, Sadarahalli and Krishnapura from its jurisdiction and Akkuru Society to release three villages i.e., Sulleri, Harohalli and Mengahalli from its area of operation and for that purpose, the authorized representative/s of the said Societies were called upon to hold special general meeting of their members and get approval for such removal of villages from their respective jurisdiction and submit the proposal/s in the prescribed format to the said Authority before 27.04.2016. It is seen that the said orders are passed by the second respondent on the basis of the recommendation made by the legislator of Channapatna Assembly constituency vide letter/s dated 08.03.2016. 4. It is seen that the said orders are passed by the second respondent on the basis of the recommendation made by the legislator of Channapatna Assembly constituency vide letter/s dated 08.03.2016. 4. When the orders impugned in both the writ petitions are looked into, they appear to be identical except with reference to the names of the villages i.e., A.V. Halli, Ankushanahalli, Sadarahalli and Krishnapura in respect of respondent No.3 in W.P. No.27313/2016 Sogala Society and Sulleri, Harohalli and Mengahalli in respect of respondent No.3 in W.P. No.24058/2016 – Akkuru Society, which are required to be released / removed from the respective jurisdiction of the said Societies. When the orders impugned are further appreciated, it is clear that the second respondent – Assistant Registrar has not applied his mind before considering the reduction of number of villages from the jurisdiction of both the Societies inasmuch as the said Societies have been in existence for a long time i.e., much earlier to the date of the impugned orders. 5. The records would also indicate that Sogala Society and Akkuru Society have given loan to its various members, who are residing in the aforesaid villages, which are now sought to be released from the jurisdiction of the respective Societies. If for any reason a decision is taken by the members of the Sogala Society and Akkuru Society in special general meeting/s to be held, to release certain villages from the respective jurisdiction of the Societies, it would become impossible for the said Societies to recover loans, which have already been lent to the members residing in the villages, which are now sought to be removed from the jurisdiction of the respective Society and the said villagers would become members of new Societies, which may be floated in some villages after their removal from the jurisdiction of Sogala Society and Akkuru Society. In that scenario, it would make things complicated for the daytoday functioning of the respective third respondent Society in recovering money, which is already lent to its members residing in villages, which are now sought to be released / removed from Sogala Society and Akkuru Society. 6. In that scenario, it would make things complicated for the daytoday functioning of the respective third respondent Society in recovering money, which is already lent to its members residing in villages, which are now sought to be released / removed from Sogala Society and Akkuru Society. 6. Therefore, in the fact situation, it is clearly seen that the common second respondent in both the writ petitions before passing separate orders of even date i.e., 28.03.2016 has not applied his mind nor given any valid and acceptable reasons to reduce the number of villages coming within the jurisdiction of the respective third respondent – Society in both the writ petitions. Further, the second respondent has issued direction to Sogala Society and Akkuru Society without seeking their views while passing the impugned orders. Therefore, the same do not stand to reason. 7. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are allowed. The impugned orders of even date i.e., 28.03.2016 (Annexure ‘B’ in both the writ petitions) passed by the second respondent – Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Ramanagara Subdivision, Ramanagara, are hereby quashed. While doing so, this Court would observe that the impleading applications i.e., respective I.A. No.1/2017 filed in both the petitions do not merit consideration inasmuch as the orders dated 28.03.2016 being quashed, the question of hearing the respective impleading applicant with reference to correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the second respondent does not arise. Accordingly, the said applications are also rejected. 8. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 is permitted to file memo of appearance in both these petitions.