- (1.) THE petitioner in this writ petition dated December 5, 2007 is questioning a decision of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, hooghly dated October 16, 2007 (at page 34) disposing of his representation dated July 14, 2006 (at page 26 ). The assistant registrar gave his decision n compliance with an order of this Court dated July 24, 2007 (at page 31)made in his previous writ petition filed also in 2007. That writ petition was filed alleging inaction on the part of the assistant registrar of co-operative societies in that representations made to him were not considered.
(2.) ONE Mr. R. K. Vohra was a member of one Shree Ambica co-operative Housing Society Limited, Hooghly, and a plot of land owned by the society was allotted to him. Mr. Vohra wanted to dispose of his plot and chose one Monoj Kumar Singh as the prospective buyer. While Monoj applied for membership of the society, the petitioner also applied for membership so that he might purchase Mr. Vohra's property. The petitioner sent his application for membership by post on July 7, 2005. By decision dated March 19, 2006 the board of directors of tfie society accepted Monoj's request for membership, and thus by implication the petitioner's application seeking membership stood rejected. Decision of the society dated March 19, 2006 was not communicated to the petitioner. On coming to learn that monoj was granted membership of the society, the petitioner started agitating by saying that he having applied first was entitled to be considered for membership. In the process he made representation dated April 3, 2006 to the assistant registrar of co-operative societies, and then alleging inaction on the part of that authority he took out the first writ petition, which was disposed of directing the assistant registrar to give a reasoned decision. This is how the impugned decision came to be given by the assistant registrar.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY, the assistant registrar has not given the decision dated october 16, 2007 in exercise of any statutory power conferred on him by the provisions of the West Bengal Co-operative societies Act, 1983 and the rules framed thereunder. The decision was rather given in view of direction given by this Court. The application for membership was to be made by the petitioner in terms of the provisions in Section 70 of the West bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. The board of directors of the society was to consider it. In the present case the application was considered and membership was not granted to the petitioner. In view of the provisions in Section 70 (4), against such decision of the society, if aggrieved, the petitioner was to prefer an appeal to the registrar. The provisions in Rule 120 (2) of the West Bengal Co-operative societies Rules, 1987 prescribed the period of limitation for preferring such an appeal. Since in the present case the decision of the society dated March 19, 2006 was not communicated to him, he was to file his appeal, if any, within ninety days from July 7, 2005, i. e. the date of application. Admittedly he did not prefer any appeal to the registrar and instead went on making representations to the assistant registrar. Hence it is the admitted position that of his own accord he chose not to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal and thus allowed the time to file appeal to expire. Long after expiration the period of appeal he moved this Court taking out writ petition. In terms of order made in that the assistant registrar has given his decision that by admitting Monoj as a member, the society did not commit any wrong, since Mr. Vohra was at liberty to sell his property to any person of his choice. I do not find anything wrong with the decision of the assistant registrar. Simply because the petitioner allegedly applied first, he did not become entitled to get membership of the society. In my view, there is no merit in the writ petition.;