Sujit Narayan Prasad,J. - (1.) Both the writ petitions have been heard together as because the first writ petition i.e. W.P.(C). No.2133 of 2018 pertains to the continuation of tenure of the petitioner/society for a period of five years in pursuance to the 97th Amendment of the Constitution while the Second writ petition being W.P.C. No.1569 of 2019 the order has been passed on 09.04.2018 by which the order of stay in operation of Bank account has been vacated, therefore, the legality and propriety of the order dated 12.03.2019 which is subject matter of the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.1569 of 2019 will depend upon the outcome of the issue raised in the W.P.(C). No.2133 of 2018.
(2.) Ms. Shruti Shrestha, learned counsel appearing for the intervener applicant has submitted that she is resident of the cooperative society, the petitioner herein, but the writ petition has been filed by the Secretary of the society which is contrary to the bye laws formulated by the petitioner society and by misleading various facts, the writ petition has been filed, therefore, the intervener applicant is necessary party for proper adjudication of the issues agitated in the writ petition.
(3.) Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel appearing for the Bank and the learned State counsel have not objected to such stand and submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, intervener applicant which is pleaded in the intervention application.;