JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. None of the parties has raised any complaint regarding audio and visual quality. 2. The instant intra-court appeal is against the order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.1995 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the writ Court was declined to interfere with the order as contained in Memo no.970/Ranchi dated 30.03.2013 passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Society, Jharkhand, whereby the letter No.SSGNS-7 dated 25.03.2012 had been set aside and the petitioner was directed to execute the sale deed as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the allotment letter dated 05.11.1988, as also declined to interfere with the order dated 10.01.2014 corresponding to Memo No.160/Ranchi dated 15.01.2014, whereby the review petition of the petitioner under Section 48(7) of the Jharkhand Co-operative Society Act, 1935 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, 1935) was dismissed. 3. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in this appeal, read as under: The respondent no.5 namely, Shri Shyamnandan Prasad became the member of the society. On 28.11.1988, the appellant entered into an agreement with Smt. Mundrika Devi wife of Sri Dashrath Lal for purchasing land situated at village Ranchi, Thana Ranchi, Thana no.205, Pargana Khukra, Municipal Survey 1932-33, Ward no.III, Khata No.9, Plot No.MS 307 and RS 707. The Plot no.307/F was provisionally allotted to the respondent no.5 after receiving an amount of Rs.25,541/-. The appellant has claimed that the respondent no.5 did not pay installment in time and as such, the Secretary of the appellant-society namely, Braj Bhushan Sinha wrote letter to the respondent no.5 on 17.01.1989 indicating that in spite of repeated requests, respondent no.5 did not comply the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. The appellant-society again wrote a letter to the respondent no.5 on 07.05.1990 requesting therein to make payment of the rest amount by 20.05.1990. The appellant-society, thereafter issued second allotment letter dated 06.09.1990 in favour of the respondent no.5 cancelling the previous allotment letter. On 28.11.1991, the respondent no.5 issued authorization letter to one Chandrama Singh to recover the amount from Braj Bhushan Sinha paid by him earlier. The appellant-society, thereafter issued second allotment letter dated 06.09.1990 in favour of the respondent no.5 cancelling the previous allotment letter. On 28.11.1991, the respondent no.5 issued authorization letter to one Chandrama Singh to recover the amount from Braj Bhushan Sinha paid by him earlier. The appellant also issued legal notice on 06.05.1997 to the respondent no.5 and directed to comply with all necessary formalities in order to execute the sale deed effectively. The appellant had issued letter dated 08.09.2011 addressed to the respondent no.5, calling explanation from him, which was replied by the respondent no.5 on 11.11.2011. However, vide letter dated 25.03.2012, the appellant in exercise of power conferred under section 41(A) of the Bye-Laws of the society and Rule 14 (2) of Jharkhand Co-operative Societies Rules, 1959 cancelled his membership as also the allotment of the plot, and further the amount so deposited by way of advance in lieu of allotment had been decided to be adjusted and rest of the amount, if any, was recovered by way of loan. Sri Shyamnandan Prasad, respondent no.5 to this appeal had preferred an application before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jharkhand, Ranchi, invoking the jurisdiction conferred to him under Section 48(1) of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 registered as Miscellaneous Case No.10 of 2012. The appellant had appeared before the Registrar, Co-operative Society being called upon and contested the case and thereafter, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ranchi had passed order on 30.03.2013, against which a review petition had been filed under the provision of Section 48(7) of the Jharkhand Societies Act, 1935 on 14.05.2013 being Review Case No.14 of 2013 but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 10.01.2014, against which the writ petitioner-appellant preferred a writ petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which was contested by the writ petitioner-appellant but the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition with a direction to the Jharkhand Co-operative Societies, which is the subject matter of the intra-court appeal. 4. Mr. 4. Mr. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there is no laches on the part of the appellant-society, rather laches is on the part of the respondent no.5 since in spite of provisional allotment letter dated 05.11.1988 of Plot no.307/F although part of the amount was paid but rest of the amount was not paid and as such, having no option allotment of the Plot No.307/F was cancelled and a decision was taken to allot another plot being Plot No.707/A vide second allotment letter dated 06.09.1990. It has further been contended that since respondent no.5 had not complied with the terms and conditions of the letter of allotment, therefore, the Co-operative Society cancelled the allotment as also the membership taking into consideration his conduct also since he had instituted F.I.R against the Secretary of the Society. However, in the criminal case there was an order of acquittal but due to the activities of the respondent no.5, the functioning of the Co-operative Society was being disturbed, therefore, in the meeting of the Board of Directors, decision was taken to cancel his membership from the Co-operative Society as also the order of allotment of loan in question. 5. Mr. 5. Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 has submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed no error in passing the order as because the respondent no.5 had deposited the entire amount as per the terms and conditions of the letter of allotment but it is due to mala fide intention of the Co-operative Society the Plot no.307/F having an area of 2 Kathas and 8 Chataks, unilaterally it was decided not to hand over the possession of the aforesaid plot in favour of the respondent no.5 and decided to handover the possession of the Plot no.707/A which is having no approach road and also lesser in area in comparison to the Plot no.307/F is based upon no reason and by changing Plot no.307/F by another Plot no.707/A, no option had been given to the respondent no.5 and since the entire amount had already been deposited, therefore, it was wrong on the part of the Co-operative Society not to handover the possession of the Plot No.307/F and unilaterally decision was taken to allot Plot no.707/A having no approach road and lesser in area and not only that, the Co-operative Society had taken decision on 25.03.2012 for cancellation of his membership. The respondent no.5, thereafter had preferred an application before the Registrar, Co-operative Society invoking the jurisdiction conferred under Section 48(1) of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 being Miscellaneous Case No.10 of 2012. However, the Registrar, Co-operative Society had quashed the decision of the authority dated 25.03.2012 to hand over the possession of the plot no.307/F by executing the sale deed as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the allotment letter dated 05.11.1988, against which the writ petitioner-appellant had preferred review petition being Review Case No.14 of 2013 but the same was also dismissed. It is further contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.5 that cancellation of his membership as also the allotment of the another plot, is without providing any opportunity since the decision was taken behind the back of the respondent no.5 and as such, the said action of the Co-operative Society was held illegal by the Registrar, Co-operative Society as well as the writ Court. 6. In response, Mr. 6. In response, Mr. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge is absolutely improper, as because even accepting the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent no.5 that the provisional allotment of Plot No.307/F was made in his favour on 05.11.1988 but the allotment of the aforesaid plot was not done rather another plot was allotted being Plot No.707/A on 06.09.1990 and the writ petition has been filed in the year 2015 and therefore, the writ petition is barred by delay and laches but this fact has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge. 7. In response to such statement, Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 has submitted that the cause of action begins on 25.03.2012 i.e. the order passed by the Co-operative Society and immediately thereafter the respondent no.5 approached before the Registrar, Co-operative Society in Misc. Case No.10 of 2012 by filing application under Section 48(1) and as such, there is no delay on the part of the respondent no.5. 8. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned AAG-II has submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Society rather the Registrar, Co-operative Society in exercise of the authority conferred under the statute 48(1) of the Act, 1935, has rightly passed the said order taking into consideration the conduct of the Co-operative Society, the cancellation of the plot vide order dated 25.03.2012 without providing an opportunity of hearing and as such, the learned Single Judge is right in not interfering with the said order, therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge requires no interference. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, after perusing the document on record as also the finding given by the learned Single Judge, this Court has found therefrom some relevant facts: The respondent no.5 had decided to purchase a plot of Shiv Sahkari Grihnirman Samitee Ltd., Ranchi, the appellant-society herein for the purpose of construction of residential house and as such, he approached to the competent authority of the Society and on the demand a sum of Rs.25,541/ was deposited for allotment of the plot. In consequence thereof, an allotment letter was issued on 05.11.1988 wherein the reference of the plot has been made as Khata No.9, Khesra No.19, 117, 139 bearing Plot No.MS 307 corresponding to RS 707, Sub Plot No.307/F measuring an area of 2 Kathas 8 Chataks. The Clause-I of the allotment letter indicates that the estimated cost of the plot is Rs.20,000/ per 720 square feet including construction of road and levelling of the surface. The allotment letter issued in favour of the respondent no.5 was accompanied with a card that Plot No.307/F is having 15 feet wide road having area 2,8;0. The respondent no.5 had entered into an agreement with the Society for purchase of the land on 28.11.1988 in which the name of the respondent no.5 appears at Serial no.21 as one of the members of the Society for the said plot. The Society had purchased the aforesaid land on 28.11.1988 from Mundrika Devi in the name of Shiv Sahkari Grihnirman Samitee Ltd., the appellant herein. The Secretary of the Co-operative Society had also issued letter regarding payment of balance money on 17.01.1989 and 07.05.1990, upon which the entire money had been paid, in lieu thereof, the money receipt had also been issued but the Co-operative Society in the meanwhile, issued second allotment letter dated 06.09.1990 which makes a reference to make payment of Rs.34,511/- to be paid by the respondent no.5 wherein the land bearing Khata No.9 MS 307 RS 707, Sub Plot No.707/A, Thana No.205 has been issued to the appellant with a foot note that this allotment letter cancels all previous allotment. It appears from the record that the respondent no.5 had deposited the entire amount which in the rejoinder affidavit has not been disputed by the Co-operative Society. Subsequently on 25.03.2012, the membership of the respondent no.5 was cancelled and the allotment of the plot against which the application was filed before the Registrar, Co-operative Society who had passed the order on contest with a direction to the appellant society to execute the sale deed 307/F, against which review application was filed but the same was also dismissed, which has been questioned by the appellant-writ petitioner before the writ Court, however, the writ Court also declined to interfere with the aforesaid decision of the Registrar, Co-operative Society which is the subject matter of the present intra-court appeal. On the basis of the relevant fact that the provisional allotment order for Plot No.307/F was issued on 05.11.1988 in pursuance to the terms and conditions of the order of allotment, the amount had been deposited and thereafter, an agreement was entered into in between the Co-operative Society and the appellant on 28.11.1988. The Plot No.307/F is having an area of 2 Kathas 8 Chataks but the sale deed was not executed. 10. We have not got from the pleadings made in the writ petition, as to what is the reason for not executing the sale deed of Plot No.307/F, however, it has been contended therein that the rest of the amount was not deposited, but the said fact has been disputed by the respondent no.5. But the question is, even accepting the amount so agreed for provisional allotment of Plot No.307/F has not been deposited by the respondent no.5, why an appropriate proceeding for cancellation of the said plot has not been initiated in terms and conditions of the Bye-laws i.e. by providing an opportunity of hearing to the respondent no.5 and further, if the respondent no.5 has not deposited the amount so agreed then why another land was allotted by virtue of another allotment letter issued on 06.09.1990. No explanation has been furnished by the appellant-society which makes the thing very clear that the conduct of the Co-operative Society is not fair enough. It is also admitted that the Plot No.307/F cannot be compared with the Plot No.707/A both in location and area since as has been admitted that there is no approach road to Plot no.707/A and the area of the said plot is lesser in comparison to the Plot no.307/F. Further, it appears from the materials available on record that the respondent no.5 had instituted a criminal case being Kotwali P.S. Case No.289 of 2017 against the society, however, there was an order of acquittal, but it is evident from the decision of the Board of Directors whereby and whereunder it has been decided to cancel the membership of the respondent no.5, the allotment as per the decision dated 25.03.2012 and the reference of criminal case has also been made therein, is the suggestive of the fact that the authorities of the Co-operative Society acted by way of grudge since respondent no.5 had instituted a criminal case against the Secretary of the Society. Further, the decision dated 25.03.2012 reflects that due to conduct of the respondent no.5 the work of the society was being hindered as he was ousted from the society, but the question is when the respondent no.5 was member of the society, should he unilaterally be ousted from the membership of the society without providing proper opportunity of hearing but without resorting to the principle of natural justice, the membership of the respondent no.5 was cancelled. Further question has been raised that second allotment letter dated 06.09.1990 was issued by allotting Plot No.707/A but there is no such explanation made by the writ petitioner-appellant in the writ petition, which shows the mala fide of the Co-operative Society. The respondent no.5 approached before the Co-operative Society under the provisions of Section 48(1) of the Act, 1935 against the order dated 25.03.2012 and the Registrar, Co-operative Society taking into consideration the fact that the cancellation of membership as also the allotment of the plot is arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and as such, quashed the aforesaid decision with a direction to execute the sale deed of the Plot No.307/F for which an agreement was executed on 28.11.1988. The review was filed against the said order which was dismissed and when the matter was brought before this Court under its extraordinary jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ Court considered the entire aspects of the matter and taking into consideration the fact in detail uphold the order passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Society by giving a finding to the effect that the writ petitioner has failed to show any cogent reason in not executing the sale deed in favour of the respondent no.5, as also the question of violation of principles of natural justice is one of the consideration made by the learned Single Judge and considering the fact that before passing the order dated 25.03.2012, no opportunity of hearing has been provided and further before making fresh allotment of plot having no approach road and lesser in area comparison to that of other plot being Plot No.307/F, is also not found to be based on valid reason which have been considered by the Registrar, Co-operative Society and thereafter, the order has been passed, therefore, the learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with the same under the jurisdiction of issuance of writ of certiorari. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the respondent no.5 had approached before the authority, Registrar, Co-operative Society under the power under Section 48(1) of the Act, 1935 after delay of reasonable period but the aforesaid ground is not found to be acceptable to this Court, for the reason that the cause of action of the respondent no.5 will be commenced with effect from 25.03.2012, the date when the Board of Director of the appellant-society took decision for cancellation of his membership as also the allotment order and immediately thereafter, in the year 2012 itself, the respondent no.5 approached before the Co-operative Society as would be evident from the case instituted before the Registrar, Co-operative Society being Misc. Case No.10/2012, therefore, according to our considered view, it cannot be said that the respondent no.5 approached to the authority after considerable delay. 11. It needs to refer herein that the scope of interference of the High Court to issue writ of certiorari sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited, as has been discussed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Yakoob Vrs. 11. It needs to refer herein that the scope of interference of the High Court to issue writ of certiorari sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited, as has been discussed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Yakoob Vrs. Radhakrishnan reported in A.I.R. 1964 477 Supreme Court wherein at paragraph no.7 their Lordships have held as follows:- “The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Art. 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals : these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal Acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Art. 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised (vide Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque, 1955-1 SCR 1104 : ((S) AIR 1955 SC 233 ); Nagendra Nath v. Commr. Of Hills Division, 1958 SCR 1240 : ( AIR 1958 SC 398 ) and Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar Singh, AIR 1960 SC 1168 . In another judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of Sawarn Singh Vrs. State of Punjab reported in (1976) 2 SCC 868 their Lordships while discussing the power of writ under Article 226 for issuance of writ of certiorari has been please to hold at paragraph nos.12 and 13 as under: “12. Before dealing with the contentions canvassed, it will be useful to notice the general principles indicating the limits of the jurisdiction of the certiorari jurisdiction can be exercised only for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals. A writ of certiorari can be issued only in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction which is different from appellate jurisdiction. The Court exercising special jurisdiction under Article 226 is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. As was pointed out by this Court in Syed Yakoob's case (supra). 13. A writ of certiorari can be issued only in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction which is different from appellate jurisdiction. The Court exercising special jurisdiction under Article 226 is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. As was pointed out by this Court in Syed Yakoob's case (supra). 13. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by an inferior tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued only if in recording such a finding, the tribunal has acted on evidence which is legally inadmissible, or has refused to admit admissible evidence, or if the finding is not supported by any evidence at all, because in such cases the error amounts to an error of law. The writ jurisdiction extends only to cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals in excess of their jurisdiction or as a result of their refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in them or they act illegally or improperly in the exercise of their jurisdiction causing grave miscarriage of justice.” In another judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pepsico India Holding (P) Ltd. Vrs. Krishna Kant Pandey reported in (2015) 4 SCC 270 their Lordships while discussing the scope of Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in the matter of interference with the finding of the tribunal has been please to hold by placing reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao Vrs. Ashalata S. Guram reported in (1986) 4 SCC 447 at para 17 has held as under:- “17. In case of finding of facts, the court should not interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Reference may be made to the observations of this Court in Bathutmal Raichand Oswal V. Laxmibai R. Tarta where this Court observed that the High Court could not in the guise of exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 convert itself into a court of appeal when the legislature has not conferred a right of appeal. The High Court was not competent to correct errors of facts by examining the evidence and re-appreciating. Speaking for the Court, Bhagwati, J, as the learned Chief Justice then was, observed at page 1301 of the report as follows: …...... The High Court was not competent to correct errors of facts by examining the evidence and re-appreciating. Speaking for the Court, Bhagwati, J, as the learned Chief Justice then was, observed at page 1301 of the report as follows: …...... power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C.J., in Dalmia Jain Airways v. Sukumar Mukherjee to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. This statement of law was quoted with approval in the subsequent decision of this Court in Nagendra Nath Bose V. Commr. Of Hills Division and it was pointed out by Sinha, J., as he then was, speaking on behalf of the court in that case: It is thus, clear that the powers of judicial interference under Article 227 of the Constitution with orders of judicial or quasi-judicial nature, are not greater than the power under Article 226 of the Constitution. Under Article 226 the power of interference may extent to quashing an impugned order on the ground of mistake apparent on the face of the record. But under Article 227 of the Constitution, the power of interference is limited to seeking that the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority.” 12. It is evident from the aforesaid judgment that the interference by issuing writ of certiorari conferred under Article 226 is very limited and the same can only be issued on the ground of jurisdictional error or perversity in finding or the decision is flagrant violation of law but by way of going through the materials on record the order passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Society as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the order impugned, no such ground is available warranting this Court for making interference by issuing writ of certiorari in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. Accordingly, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has committed no error, warranting any interference by this Court. 14. In view thereof, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J. I agree.