ORDER : 1. Aggrieved by the permission being granted for establishment and registration of a Co-operative Society of which respondent No. 6 is the Chief Promoter in Siruguppa Tq, Tekkalkote Village, in spite of the petitioner Cooperative Society being registered and operating in the same place, the instant writ petition is filed. 2. Respondent No. 2 by his order dated 16.03.2022 bearing No. RCS/CRD/KME-8/ 111/2021-22 vide Annexure-C to the writ petition has accorded permission for registration of a new Co-operative Society as aforementioned. The said order is impugned in the instant writ petition. 3. The case of the petitioner is that, it is a society registered under the provision of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 and it is operating for the benefits of the farmers in the villages of Tekkalkote and Devi Nagar. When this is the position, respondent No. 6 has sought to register another Co-operative Society in the village Tekkalkote and respondent No. 2 has accorded permission for the same in violation of Rule 3-B(iii) and contends that the same is liable to be set aside. 4. Rule 3-B(iii) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 reads as under: “3-B. Factors to be considered by Registering Authority at the time of registration - The Registering Authority, while according permission for the collection of initial share capital at the time of registration of a Cooperative Society, shall consider the following namely: (i).............. (ii).............. (iii) overlapping of the existing similar Co-operative Societies.” 5. Thus, respondent No. 2 while according permission for a new society, has to consider the effect of an existing Co-operative Society in the area and decide whether it is advisable to accord permission for the commencement of a new Co-operative Society. In the instant case, reading of the impugned order reveals that the respondent No. 2 has considered the existence of the petitioner society operating in the same area and has recorded that, as the petitioner society is unable to cater to the needs of all the farmers in the area in which it is operating, it is desirable to accord permission for starting of a new Co-operative Society as requested by respondent No. 6. 6. However, it is contended by the petitioner that, once a Co-operative Society is operating in any area, then without hearing the already existing Co-operative Society permission for a new Co-operative Society cannot be granted. 7. 6. However, it is contended by the petitioner that, once a Co-operative Society is operating in any area, then without hearing the already existing Co-operative Society permission for a new Co-operative Society cannot be granted. 7. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Parathamik Krushi Pattin Sahakari Sangh Niyamit and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others, 2019 (2) Kar. L.J. 49. Paragraph Nos. 17 and 18 of the said judgment reads as under: “17. What is to be noticed is that, Rule 3-B was not brought to the notice of the Coordinate Benches in both these matters. In fact, in Mahila Halu Utpadakara Sahakari Sangha (Supra), the Coordinate Bench has specifically observed that, the learned counsel for the petitioners has not pointed out any Rule of Section which stipulates that if a co-operative society dealing in a particular line of business or activity, another society also dealing with the same line of business or activity cannot be set up in the vicinity. If only Rule 3-B was brought to the notice of the Coordinate Bench, the decision would have been different. 18. In the light of the discussion made above, this Court is of the opinion that, in view of the introduction of Rule 3-B in the Rules, registering authority is required to consider the factors enumerated therein, even before permission for collection of initial share capital is accorded to the applicants. One of the factors being “overlapping of the existing similar Co-operative Societies” it would become incumbent upon the registering authority to call for objections or afford an opportunity of hearing to the existing credit co-operative society before according such permission. If registering authority is of the opinion that, having regard to the population or growth in the population and growth in the economy, it is required to have another co-operative society to do similar business, the registering authority has to assign such reasons, before giving permission for collection of initial share capital.” 8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6 submits that, the observations of this Court in the case aforementioned is only an obiter and it is not a ratio and it is further submitted that the aforementioned case has been subsequently considered by this Court in W.P. No. 104197/2022 in the case of Yallapur Prathamika Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamita, Yallapur vs. State of Karnataka and Others. Paragraph Nos. Paragraph Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21 and 22 reads as under: “11. It is to be borne in mind that the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act 1959 (for short ‘the Act’) was enacted with the objective to promote voluntary formation of autonomous functioning, democratic control and professional management of Co-operative Societies. The objective behind forming of a co-operative moment is essentially to encourage the co-operative moment which would result in common benefit to all the members who work collectively. The very essence of the Co-operative moment is to encourage formation of the co-operative societies. 12. It is for thus precise therein, there is no bar on the number of co-operative Societies that can be registered in an area. The Act essentially seeks to regulate the registration of a co-operative society and the manner in which the co-operative societies are to be managed and also in ensuring the rights and liabilities of the members are protected. 13. Section 6 of the Act provides for filing of an application with the Registrar in the prescribed form seeking for registration of a co-operative society. The applicants are required to furnish all such information as required by the Registrar. One of the requirements is that, in respect of a co-operative Society which has the object of creation of funds to be lent to its members, is that of the applicants should reside in the same village or the town or in the proposed area of co-operation of the co-operative society. 14. There is absolutely no requirement of the society of the applicant to indicate the existence of any rival society in the area within which it intends to operate. On the basis of the information furnished by the promoters, the Registrar is required to be satisfied that the proposed Society has a reasonable chance of success and would be economically viable and if he so satisfied, he may register the society. 15. No doubt, the Registrar is required to take into consideration certain factors such as population in the area of the operation of the proposed co-operative society, the assessment of economic and financial feasibility, like collection of share, funds from the shareholders and also the overlapping of the existing similar co-operative societies. 16. 15. No doubt, the Registrar is required to take into consideration certain factors such as population in the area of the operation of the proposed co-operative society, the assessment of economic and financial feasibility, like collection of share, funds from the shareholders and also the overlapping of the existing similar co-operative societies. 16. The factors prescribed under Rule 3-B of the Rules, 1960 are essentially factors, which would aid in determining whether the proposed society has a reasonable chance of success and is likely to be to economically viable. It is for the applicant to satisfy the financial viability and the likelihood of chances of success of the proposed society by production of relevant material. 17. By the very nature of the rule, it is obvious that a rival competing co-operative society would be able to establish the negative i.e., the proposed Society cannot succeed or cannot be financially viable. Obviously, every competing Society would put forth the plea that the proposed Society would not be financially viable only to protect its own turf and prevent kind of competition. It is quite probable that an existing society would want to create or maintain a monopoly and would not like any competition or the probability of a competitor eating into its business. 18. The provisions of the Act and Rules are designed to enable the Registrar to satisfy himself regarding the financially viability and likelihood of a reasonable chance of success of the applicant society basis and for this purpose the only criteria would be the material produced by the applicant. If the Registrar is satisfied that the proposed applicant meets the prescribed criteria, registration cannot normally be refused. 20. It is to be stated here that there cannot be any person aggrieved by the registration of the co-operative society. This is fundamentally because the Act does not give any semblance of right to any other person to have a say in the registration of another co-operative society. It is therefore clear that the petitioner being a competing co-operative society, would have absolutely no locus standi to question the registration of the co-operative society. 21. This is fundamentally because the Act does not give any semblance of right to any other person to have a say in the registration of another co-operative society. It is therefore clear that the petitioner being a competing co-operative society, would have absolutely no locus standi to question the registration of the co-operative society. 21. The Judgment relied upon by the learned Senior counsel in the case of Parathamik Krushi Pattin Sahakari Sangh Niyamit and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others, 2019 (2) KLJ 49 can also be no avail because in that case this Court did not examine whether a rival competing co-operative society had the locus standi to challenge the registration of another co-operative Society. No doubt, in that case, the Court has stated that registering authority is required to hear the existing credit co-operative Society also at the time of registration. However, that was a case in which the Court was examining whether the Assistant Registrar of co-operative societies was right in permitting the respondent Nos.5 and 6 societies therein to collect initial share funds. In that decision, there is absolutely no examination of the legal right of an existing co-operative society to challenge the registration of another cooperative society. 22. The reliance placed on Rule 3-B of the Rules, 1960 regarding the overlapping of the existing similar cooperative society as a factor to be considered by the registering authority in order to confer locus on the petitioner-society cannot also be accepted. The factor of overlapping of existing similar co-operative societies is to be considered by the registering authority so as to only satisfy him regarding the financial viability of the proposed society. If the registering authority is satisfied that the proposed society has a reasonable chance of success and can be financially viable, it would be permissible for him to grant registration notwithstanding the fact that there exist similar co-operative societies in the same area of operation. It is to be kept in mind that allowing one co-operative society to oppose the creation of another co-operative society would basically be against very essence of the co-operative moment.” 9. Thus, under the provisions of the Karnataka Co- Operative Societies Act, 1959, there is no bar on the number of Co-operative Society that can be registered in an area. It is to be kept in mind that allowing one co-operative society to oppose the creation of another co-operative society would basically be against very essence of the co-operative moment.” 9. Thus, under the provisions of the Karnataka Co- Operative Societies Act, 1959, there is no bar on the number of Co-operative Society that can be registered in an area. However, the registering authority at the time of according permission for registration of a new Cooperative Society has to consider certain factors as stated in the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act and Rules made thereunder, which includes overlapping of the existing similar Co-operative Societies as per Rule 3-B(iii) of the Rules, so that the Co-operative Society to be registered or a competing Co-operative Society, which is in existence will not become a failure and the Co-operative movement is not thwarted and that the registration of a new Society should benefit the persons in the area. In the instant case, respondent No. 2 has considered the existence of the petitioner-Co-operative Society in the area where respondent No. 6 is desirous of establishing another Co-operative Society and the impugned order also records that the petitioner-Society has not been able to cater to the requirement of all the farmers in the area and given the population of the area, registration of another Co-operative Society is only going to benefit the Cooperative movement in the said area and help the people therein. As held by this Court in W.P. No. 104197/2021, the rival Co-operative Society will always contend that there is no need for establishment of another Co-operative Society. What has to be looked into is whether the fact of another competing Co-operative Society being already in existence in the area and the requirement for a new Cooperative Society has been examined by the registering authority or not. 10. In the instant case, as already been stated above, the registering authority has considered the existence of the petitioner-Society and after satisfying himself has accorded permission to collect share capital for establishment of a new Society in accordance with the provisions of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act and Rules made therein and I do not find any error in the same. 11. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. 12. In view of the dismissal of the main petition, pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed off.