SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J. - (1.) This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the order passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Society Jharkhand, Ranchi dated 30.05.2019 passed in Misc. Case No.14 of 2019 is under challenge, whereby and whereunder, the objection having been raised by the petitioner against the enhancement of service charge by the Jamshedpur Co-operative Housing Building Society, has been rejected by the Registrar acting in exercise of power conferred under Section 48 of the Jharkhand Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 hereinafter referred as the Act, 1935.
(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he is one of the flat owner situated in Jamshedpur Co-operative Housing Building and also member of the society created for the purpose of looking after the services upon the member of the Societies but the rate of the service charge as has been fixed by the meeting conducted of the general body is exorbitant, therefore, the same has not been agreed upon by the petitioner, however, the decision has been taken with the consent of majority of the flat owners but the petitioner being aggrieved with the said enhancement, has invoked the jurisdiction of the Registrar as conferred power under the provision of Section 48 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1935. The Registrar, acting in pursuance to the provision of Section 48 of the Act, 1935, has called upon the members of society who have put their appearance and thereafter an enquiry has been sought to be conducted by the order of the Registrar and to that effect the order was passed basis upon which an enquiry report was submitted by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society, Jamshedpur and placing reliance upon the same the objection raised by the petitioner before the Registrar, has been rejected and the enhancement has been allowed, against which, the present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the said order on the ground that the members were present on the day when general body meeting was conducted, was not as per the provision of by-laws rather the tenants who are residing in the flat in said society situated and being managed by the society have also been allowed to be participated and after taking their consent the enhancement has been approved the objectors one of which is the petitioner and as such, the decision for enhancement has been taken contrary to the terms and conditions stipulated in the by-laws therefore, not sustainable, however, the same has not been appreciated by the Registrar hence the order impugned is not sustainable.;