Satyavrat Verma, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State along with learned counsel for the State Election Authority, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Thakur.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an Election Petition (Annexure-1 to the writ application) bearing No. 10 of 2009 was filed before the Respondent No. 3 by the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 challenging the election dated 13.06.2009 held for constituting the Managing Committee of Arpana Sahkari Gram Nirman Samiti Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Society’) in the Election Petition, it was alleged that the election had taken place based on fake and forged voter list as 37 persons named in the voter list from Serial No. 152 to 188 were not voters of the Society.

3. It is next submitted that the membership of the petitioners and 34 others was questioned on the ground that the Managing Committee of the Society had not approved their names. It is further submitted that O.P. No. 3 of the Election Petition, a returned candidate for the post of Secretary had replied the contents of the Election Petition, stating that there were 151 members of the Society as on 31.03.2004 and 37 members were enrolled in between 2005 to 2006, of these 37 persons, 12 are having plots/flats in the Society which is not disputed or opposed by any person, as such, there was no controversy that O.P. No. 3, who had issued receipt of membership to the petitioners and 34 others, was not the Secretary of the Society on the basis of elections held on 22.12.2004.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners, at this stage, submits that inadvertently at Para-5 instead of 22.12.2004 it has been typed as 22.12.2014, the submission is noted.

5. It is next submitted that since O.P. No. 3 (Anil Kumar) of the Election Petition died, hence not impleaded as party respondent in the present case.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that the Joint Registrar vide his order dated 19.01.2010 (Annexure-3 to the writ application) in Election Dispute Case No. 10 of 2009, set aside the entire election of the Managing Committee and held that 37 persons including the petitioners were not valid members of the Society. It is next submitted that the petitioners against the part of the order dated 19.01.2010 in Election Dispute Case No. 10 of 2009 preferred appeal before the Registrar, Co-operative Society. The petitioners were aggrieved by that part of the order which affected their membership in the Society. One of the grounds raised in the appeal was that the order dated 19.01.2010 was passed without giving the petitioners and similarly situated persons like them any opportunity of hearing, apart from other grounds.

7. The Registrar, Co-operative Society vide order dated 30.01.2014/17.02.2014 (Annexure-4 to the writ application) rejected the Appeal No. 82 of 2010 holding it to be not maintainable on the ground that in terms of the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 22343 of 2011 which was affirmed in L.P.A. No. 339 of 2013, the Registrar, Co-operative Society had no jurisdiction to entertain appeal against the order passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Society.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that the order dated 13.08.2012 in C.W.J.C. No. 22343 of 2011 affirmed in L.P.A. No. 250 of 2013 and L.P.A. No. 339 of 2013 (Annexure-5 to the writ application) is in accordance with Section 10 and 13(2) of the Bihar State Election Authority Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 2008’) read with Section 14A and Section 48 of the Bihar Co-operative Society Act, 1935.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the Act of 2008 came in existence on 23.04.2008. Under Section 3 of 2008 Act, Election Authority was constituted and under Section 4 of the 2008 Act, the Authority had jurisdiction to conduct election only of such bodies as Cooperative Society, Siksha Samiti or any other institution, organization and establishment entrusted to