JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In the instant writ application petitioner prays for the following relief(s):- (a) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the letter no. 38- finance/11/2018-369 dated 02.07.2019 whereby and whereunder the Special Audit Team has been constituted by the Respondent No. 2 to inspect into the financial irregularities of the Jharkhand State Cooperative Bank, although under the Jharkhand Cooperative Societies Act, 1935, the respondents have no power to constitute the Special Audit Team; (b) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the concerned respondents not to look into the report of the Special Audit Team constituted by the Respondent No. 2 as the Special Audit Team itself is unconstitutional as per Jharkhand Cooperative Societies Act, 1935 & Banking Regulation Act, 1949 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Cooperative Department has no power to constitute a Special Audit Committee to audit the matter of the financial irregularities of the State Cooperative Bank. She further submits that initially a team was constituted by the 3rd Respondent to submit a report regarding the complaint made by one Enamul Haque and Vishal Singh and thereafter, the inquiry team has enquired into the matter and submitted its report. She further submits that the complainants namely Enamul Haque and Vishal Singh are not authorized persons and they are neither member of the Society nor in any way connected to Jharkhand State Co-operative Bank Limited as per requirement of Section 35 of the Jharkhand Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 (hereinafter as Act). 4. Learned counsel further submits that on perusal of the Section 35 of the Act, it would be evident that Enamul Haque and Vishal Singh are not even the competent persons to complaint against the working and financial condition of a Registered Society/Bank and inquiry done on the basis of the said complaint itself is not proper. She lastly submits that on the basis of the inquiry report, 3rd Respondent has requested the Planning-cum- Finance Department to look into the matter and conduct Special Audit which is in violation of Section 44(AV) (19) of the Act. 5. She lastly submits that on the basis of the inquiry report, 3rd Respondent has requested the Planning-cum- Finance Department to look into the matter and conduct Special Audit which is in violation of Section 44(AV) (19) of the Act. 5. Per Contra, learned counsel representing the respondents submits that the contention and averment made in the writ petition are misconceived because the issue of conducting a Special Audit by the Special Audit Team to inspect into the financial irregularities is in consonance with Jharkhand Co-operative Societies Act and in the interest of Public. There is no exercise of excessive jurisdiction and the constitution of Special Audit Team is well within the authority and power exercised in terms of the Act. He further submits that it is worth mentioning that Section 33-A of the Act confers the Registrar- Respondent No. 5 to conduct special audit on his own motion with written direction. In the present case the Registrar vide memo no. 3095 (3) dated 07.12.18 directed 5th Respondent to conduct Special Audit for the period of 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18. Therefore, the averments made in the writ petition regarding excessive jurisdiction exercised by 3rd Respondent is incorrect as the competent authority under section 33-A of the Act i.e., 5th Respondent has requested for Special Audit to 4th Respondent; as such no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the various provisions of the Act it appears that a team was constituted by the 3rd Respondent to submit a report regarding the complaint made by one Enamul Haque and Vishal Singh and thereafter, the inquiry team was constituted by the Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Cooperation Department, who enquired into the matter and submitted its report. 7. The sole issue which cropped up before this Court is whether the Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Cooperation Department, has power to constitute a Special Audit Committee to audit the matter of the financial irregularities of the State Cooperative Bank when the R.B.I. has never made any request for special audit. 8. For this, it is necessary to peruse Section 44 AT, Section, 44AU and Clause 19 of Section 44-AV of the Act; for brevity, the same is extracted hereinbelow:- 1[Chapter VI-C] For the special provision applicable to short term co-operation credit structure. 44 AT. 8. For this, it is necessary to peruse Section 44 AT, Section, 44AU and Clause 19 of Section 44-AV of the Act; for brevity, the same is extracted hereinbelow:- 1[Chapter VI-C] For the special provision applicable to short term co-operation credit structure. 44 AT. Provision to this chapter to apply to short term Co- operative Credit Structure Societies :- The provision contained in this chapter shall apply to short terms Co-operative credit structure societies, 44 AU. Notwithstanding anything contrary to or inconsistent with any provision contained in any other chapter of this Act or Rules framed under bye-laws of any registered society or order issued under the provision of this chapter shall have overriding effect. 44 AV…. (19) Special audit :- The Registrar shall get conducted a special audit of the State Co-operative Bank and central co-operative bank on the request of the Reserve Bank in the manner and form stipulated by the Reserve Bank and shall endorse a copy of the report of such special audit to the Reserve Bank and National Bank within the time stipulated by the Reserve Bank.” 9. By going through the Clause 19 of Section 44-AV of the Act, it is crystal clear that the Registrar shall get conducted a special audit of the State Co-operative Bank and central co-operative bank on the request of the Reserve Bank in the manner and form stipulated by the Reserve Bank. At this stage, itself it is pertinent to mention here that Clause 19 of Section 44-AV of the Jharkhand Co- operative Societies Act, 1935, comes under Chapter-VIC, which has an overriding effect as is clearly mentioned under Section 44 AU of the Act. As such the argument of the respondent that Section 33-A empowers the Registrar to conduct special audit on his own motion is misconceived as Chapter VI – C has overriding effect. Admittedly, in the instant case no such request has been made by Reserve Bank of India, as such this court finds that the Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Cooperation Department, has exceeded its jurisdiction in constituting the Special Audit Committee to audit the matter of the financial irregularities of the State Cooperative Bank without any request of the Reserve Bank of India in the manner and form stipulated by the RBI. 10. As such, letter no. 10. As such, letter no. 38-finance/11/2018-369 dated 02.07.2019; whereby and whereunder the Special Audit Team has been constituted by the Respondent No. 2, is quashed and set aside being beyond jurisdiction. 11. Accordingly, this writ application stands allowed. Pending I.As, if any, also stands Closed.