Refusal of registration appealable under Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, society not amenable to writ jurisdiction, and Article 226 cannot be used to seek cancellation of registered instruments.

( 1 ) ALL the above petitions are disposed of by the following common order as the questions of law raised and the facts are similar. For the purpose of convenience, the facts stated in W. P. 24193 to 24198 of 1981 are taken and followed.

( 2 ) IN these batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have made a common grievance of certain events to which a brief reference will be made later in the course of the order, and have sought for the following reliefs : (I) to issue a writ of mandamus or similar writ or order or direction to respondents 1 to 3 to register the amendment to bye-law as approved by the General body of the fourth respondent on 25- 12-1973; (II) to issue a writ of mandamus or similar writ or order or direction to respondents 1 to 3 to direct the fourth respondent not to act contrary to the amendments made to the bye-law approved by the General Body on 25-12-1973. (III) to issue a writ of certiorari or similar order or direction to quash the cancellation deeds executed by the fourth respondent and registered by the fifth respondent as at Annexures 'b' to 'g'; and (IV) to grant such other consequential reliefs including cost deemed fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. The facts briefly stated are these : the petitioners claim to be the members of 4th respondent the Binny Mills Labour Association House Building Co-operative Society ltd. They further claim that in accordance with the amended bye-law, they were admitted as nominal members and as such they were allotted sites and deeds of conveyance executed on receipt of consideration and duly registered. It is further asserted that they have been put in possession of the sites and some of them have built houses on the sites. Sometime thereafter, the 4th respondent-Society, it is alleged, executed deeds of cancellation of allotment of sites and got the same registered with the 5th respondent- the sub-Registrar, Sriramapuram, Bangalore, and therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court for the reliefs which have been set out earlier in the course of this order. Smt. Pramila, learned counsel appearing for respondent-4 has produced the letter (original) issued to the Manager of the 4th respondenl-Housing Co-operative Society by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, bangalore Division, bearing the date 3-9- 1980 which reads as follows:"sub : Amendments to the Bye-laws of the Binny Mills Labour Association hbcs Ltd. Ref : Your letter No. 30/79-80 dated 24-5- 1989. Please refer to the correspondence cited. You are informed that the amendments are passed in 1973 and they are coming up for approval after 7 years. The matter is delayed over seven years. Hence please re-examine all the bye-laws and bring a fresh amendment proposal before the general Body and submit the same for necessary action. Entire proposal is herewith returned. "

( 3 ) FROM the above, it is seen that the bye-law amended proposing or providing for nominal membership as evidenced by Annexure-A was not approved for the reasons stated in the order extracted above. The bye-law, therefore, has not become effective. Therefore, the need for issuing a writ of mandamus as per relief No. 1 prayed by the petitioners does not arise because the Registrar has performed his statutory obligation of registering or not registering the bye-laws as amended for the reasons given by him. That refusal of registration may be right or may be wrong. But in terms of Section 106 (l) (b) of the Kar- nataka Co-operative Societies Act, the refusal is appealable order and person aggrieved, viz. , the co-operative society has a right of appeal which it has not exercised. Against the refusal, it cannot be said that the persons who claim to be the members of the 4th respondent- Society have a right to seek a writ of mandamus in this Court. It is only misconceived prayer and this Court cannot grant the petitioners the first of the reliefs they have prayed for.

( 4 ) THE