JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. Heard the parties. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the order dated 06.07.2017 passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jharkhand, Ranchi in Appeal Case No.18 of 2015 (copy of which has been kept at Annexure-11 of this Writ Petition) whereby and where under the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 20.07.2015 passed by the District Co-operative Officer, Bokaro has been dismissed and the said order dated 20.07.2015, has been upheld. Prayer has also been made in this Writ Petition for quashing the said order dated 20.07.2015 passed by the District Co-operative Officer, Bokaro in Case No.01 of 2014 (copy of which has been kept at Annexure-8 of this Writ Petition) whereby and where under the District Co-operative Officer, Bokaro, dismissed the case of the petitioners for stoppage of the construction of Commercial and Multi-storied Building Complex on the allotted residential plots of the Cooperative Society and consequential reliefs. 3. The case of the petitioners in brief is that the respondent No.5 is a Society Registered under Bihar and Orissa Act, 1935. The members of the society rose to 1050 in the year 2013. A total of 870 numbers of plots have been allotted to its Members. The Secretary of the respondent No.5- Cooperative Society in connivance with some vested interest by committing fraud has got a Resolution of the Annual General Meeting passed on 07.04.2013 against the basic purpose of the society for which the respondent No.5- Cooperative Society was formed. By such Resolution No.9, it has been decided that the plots may be used for the purpose of construction of multi-storied residential complex. The petitioners further contended that construction of multi-storied complex will amount to commercialization at the instance of defaulting members of the society who though have been allotted residential accommodations, but are not residing there. Plot Nos.328 and 329 which have been allotted to the private respondents but they never utilized it and as per the Bye-laws when lying vacant, and thus were fit to be cancelled, for further allotment to needy and desirous members of the society, have been handed over the respondent- builder for construction of multi-storied building. Plot Nos.328 and 329 which have been allotted to the private respondents but they never utilized it and as per the Bye-laws when lying vacant, and thus were fit to be cancelled, for further allotment to needy and desirous members of the society, have been handed over the respondent- builder for construction of multi-storied building. The development agreement is against the aims and objects of the respondent No.5- Cooperative Society and its Bye-laws and is designed to destroy the whole concept of Cooperative Society. The petitioners approached the District Co-operative Officer, Bokaro for restraining the respondents from making the construction and the said petition was registered as Case No.01/2014. Despite the status quo order passed by the District Co-operative Officer, Bokaro; as the construction continued, the petitioners filed W.P. (C) No.5052 of 2014 in this Court. The Writ Petition was withdrawn as the District Administration filed a counter-affidavit stating that they have taken all steps of for ensuring compliance of the order dated 12.02.2014 in Case No.01 of 2014 passed by the District Co-operative Officer, Bokaro. The District Co-operative Officer, Bokaro vide order dated 20.07.2015 dismissed the Case No.01 of 2014 without appreciating the fact that commercialization and conversion of plot meant for residential purpose is opposed to the Bye-laws of the society. The petitioners preferred Appeal Case No.18 of 2015 before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jharkhand, Ranchi but the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jharkhand, Ranchi in most mechanical and casual manner without appreciating and addressing the issues raised by the petitioners, has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners vide order dated 07.07.2017 without considering the commercialization elements which is being sought to be infused on the piece of plot meant for residential purpose nor in violation of the same. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of State of Maharashtra & Others vs. Karvanagar Sahakari Griha Rachana Sanstha Maryadit & Others reported in (2000) 9 SCC 295 , Dhaneshbhai Bhikhubhai Patel & 1 vs. Shantiniketan Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. & 1 reported in AIR 2014 Guj 4 , the judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench of Patna High Court in the case of Narendra Mishra vs. The State of Bihar & Others reported in 2013 SCC OnLine Pat 1002 and the judgment of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Chandeshwar Prasad and etc. etc. etc. vs. State of Bihar & Others reported in 1987 SCC OnLine Pat 11 which are all the judgments relating to cases where construction of complexes, without the approval of the Cooperative Society or its Board and thus were challenged before the courts. The courts considering the settled principle of law that the interest of the society is primary for the society alone to decide and not for any outside agency to decide, deprecated the outside intervention in construction of housing complexes/commercial complexes within the premises of the area under the control of the cooperative societies, and learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in those cases different courts have deprecated the commercialization of the property of the cooperative society and the difficulty that will arise regarding the infrastructure existing within the area controlled by the cooperative society, by construction of multi-storied complexes, regarding discharge of sewerage and other infrastructure, and have deprecated such construction of multi-storied complex. Hence, it is submitted that both the District Co-operative Officer, Bokaro and the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jharkhand, Ranchi have committed a gross illegality in not allowing the prayer of the petitioners to stop such construction. It is lastly submitted that the prayers, as made in this Writ Petition, be allowed. 5. The learned senior counsel for the private respondents relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bengal Secretariat Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank and Housing Society Ltd. vs. Aloke Kumar & Another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1404 paragraphs-56 and 57 of which read as under:- “56. It is not in dispute that the General Body of the Appellant Society, which is supreme, has taken up a conscious decision to redevelop the administrative building. The General Body of the Appellant Society has also resolved to appoint the Hi-Rise as the developer. Those decisions having not been challenged at all, the Respondent No. 1 being a member of the Appellant Society is bound by the said decisions. The General Body of the Appellant Society has approved the terms and conditions of the development agreement by overwhelming majority. Those decisions having not been challenged at all, the Respondent No. 1 being a member of the Appellant Society is bound by the said decisions. The General Body of the Appellant Society has approved the terms and conditions of the development agreement by overwhelming majority. Merely because the terms and conditions of the development agreement are not acceptable to the Respondent No. 1, who could be said to be in minuscule minority cannot be the basis of not to abide by the decision of the overwhelming majority of the General Body of the Appellant Society. The redevelopment of the property is necessitated in view of the fact that the building is in a dilapidated condition with passage of time. The redevelopment thus, in our view, would be a requirement and a necessity and cannot be termed as business. The Appellant Society in such circumstances did not even require to carry out any amendment to the bye-laws or to include the “redevelopment of the buildings” as one of the objects of the Society before taking any decision to redevelop its property. 57. By now it is well established position that once a person becomes a member of the Co-operative Society, he loses his individuality with the Society and he has no independent rights except those given to him by the statute and bye-laws. The member has to speak through the Society or rather the Society alone can act and speaks for him qua the rights and duties of the Society as a body (see : Daman Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (1985) 2 SCC 670 : AIR 1985 SC 973 ). This view has been followed in the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Chheoki Employees Co-operative Society Ltd., reported in (1997) 3 SCC 681 : AIR 1997 SC 1413 . In this decision, this Court further observed that the member of a Society has no independent right qua the Society and it is the Society that is entitled to represent as the corporate aggregate. This Court also observed that the stream cannot rise higher than the source. Suffice it to observe that so long as the Resolutions passed by the General Body of the Appellant Society are in force and not overturned by a forum of competent jurisdiction, the said decisions would bind the Respondent No. 1. This Court also observed that the stream cannot rise higher than the source. Suffice it to observe that so long as the Resolutions passed by the General Body of the Appellant Society are in force and not overturned by a forum of competent jurisdiction, the said decisions would bind the Respondent No. 1. He cannot be permitted to take a stand alone position but is bound by the majority decision of the General Body. Notably, the Respondent No. 1 has not challenged the Resolutions passed by the General Body of the Appellant Society to redevelop the property and more so, to appoint the Hi-Rise as the Developer to give him all the redevelopment rights.” (Emphasis supplied) and submits that it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the said case that so long as the Resolutions passed by the General Body of the Appellant Society are in force and not overturned by a forum of competent jurisdiction, the said decisions would bind the members of the Cooperative Society and the members of the Cooperative Society cannot be permitted to take a stand alone position but is bound by the majority decision of the General Body. 6. It is next submitted by the learned senior counsel that like the case of Bengal Secretariat Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank and Housing Society Ltd. vs. Aloke Kumar & Another (supra) in this case also the petitioners have not challenged the Resolution dated 07.04.2013 of the society. 7. It is next submitted by the learned senior counsel that the Writ Petition has become infructuous as the prayer before the District Co-operative Officer, Bokaro was to stop the construction but in the meanwhile construction, in accordance with law, has already been made and the flats have been delivered to the purchasers thereof in accordance with the due process of law between December, 2016 to March, 2017 and in this respect, learned senior counsel draws the attention of this Court towards the possession letters annexed with the counter-affidavit. It is next submitted that both the District Co-operative Officer, Bokaro and the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jharkhand, Ranchi have considered the object of the Bye-laws of the society and tested the same and thereby not finding any justifiable reason to accede to the illegal prayer of the writ petitioners, they have respectively dismissed the original application and the appeal. It is next submitted that both the District Co-operative Officer, Bokaro and the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jharkhand, Ranchi have considered the object of the Bye-laws of the society and tested the same and thereby not finding any justifiable reason to accede to the illegal prayer of the writ petitioners, they have respectively dismissed the original application and the appeal. Hence, it is submitted that this Writ Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 8. Learned SC (MINES) I draws the attention of this Court to the different clauses of the Bye-laws and submits that as per the Bye-laws, the respondent No.5- Cooperative Society is authorized to construct new residential house or any other building either to construct itself or to get it constructed. Learned SC (MINES) I next draws the attention of this Court to Clause-45 of the Bye-law and submits that therein also it has been categorically mentioned that the Board of Directors of respondent No.5- Cooperative Society can either construct or get it constructed as per the standard decided by it. Drawing attention of this Court towards the Resolution No.9 dated 07.04.2013, learned SC (MINES) I submits that it has been explained therein under what circumstances it was decided to go for construction of a multi-storied building the reason being there were about 55-60 members of the respondent No.5- Cooperative Society who deposited money for the plots but because of non-availability of the land, plots could not be allotted to them. Hence, it was decided to get multi-storied building constructed. It is next submitted that thus, the Cooperative Society having taken a reasoned decision in accordance with law, there is absolutely no illegality committed by the Cooperative Society in entering into a tripartite agreement with the developer and two of the members who were allotted two different plots to construct multi-storied buildings with the condition that such members of the Cooperative Society who have not been allotted any unit, will be given preference with a discount of 5% of the price and they will be given the first preference in allotment of the units in the multi-storied building. Hence, it is submitted that as there was no illegality committed by the respondent No.5- Cooperative Society, both the District Cooperative Officer, Bokaro and the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jharkhand, Ranchi have rightly dismissed the original application and the appeal respectively, Hence, it is submitted that this Writ Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 9. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, so far as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners as already mentioned above, at the cost of repetition, it is pertinent to mention here that they were cases, where against the decision of the General Body of the Cooperative Society, decisions were imposed upon the society for construction of multi-storied complex and commercial complex. But as already indicated above, the facts of this case are entirely different. In this case, undisputedly on 07.04.2013 a resolution being the Resolution No.9 of the said date, was taken in the Annual General Meeting of the Co-operative Society, the genuineness, sanctity or the legality of which was never challenged by the petitioners before the District Cooperative Officer, Bokaro, Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jharkhand, Ranchi or before this Court. The natural corollary is that the petitioners being the members of the society are bound by the decision taken in the Annual General Body Meeting including the Resolution No.9 dated 07.04.2013. 10. Be that as it may, the perusal of the record reveals that the undisputed fact remains that this is not the only multi-storied complex constructed in the society concerned but several multi-storied complexes have already been constructed by several other persons in the area controlled by the Cooperative Society; as is evident from the orders passed by the District Cooperative Officer, Bokaro and the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jharkhand, Ranchi and the veracity of the said facts has not been questioned in this Writ Petition and the petitioners never objected to the same. It is also evident from the said impugned orders that there was some dispute inter se between the members of the society and as the petitioners found themselves in minority, hence, they being disgruntled members are litigating to harass the respondent No.5- Cooperative Society. 11. It is also evident from the said impugned orders that there was some dispute inter se between the members of the society and as the petitioners found themselves in minority, hence, they being disgruntled members are litigating to harass the respondent No.5- Cooperative Society. 11. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bengal Secretariat Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank and Housing Society Ltd. vs. Aloke Kumar & Another (supra), this Court has no hesitation in holding that the resolutions passed by the General Body, so long they are in force and are not overturned by a forum having competent jurisdiction, the same would bind the members of the Society including the petitioners. 12. After carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court do not find any material to suggest that any decision has been taken by the respondent No.5- Cooperative Society to construct any commercial complex. There is no allegation that the multi-storied building has been constructed scouting or without sanction of the Building Construction Regulatory Authority. Further the prayer for stopping the construction has become infructous because of the undisputed fact that the complex has already been constructed and the allottees have been occupying the allotted apartments. 13. Under such circumstances, this Court do not find any justifiable reason to quash the concurrent orders of the District Cooperative Officer, Bokaro or the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jharkhand passed in Case No.01 of 2014 and Appeal Case No.18 of 2015. 14. Accordingly, this Writ Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed.