PRESIDENT TAPPERS CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY KOTHAPALLI Vs. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES KARIMNAGAR NORTH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 9-4-1964 passed by the first respondent, Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, on an appeal from an order passed by the petitioner as the President of the Tappers Co-operative Society, Kothapalli. Respondents 2 to 15 applied to the President of the Co-operative Society (petitioner herein) for being admitted as members of the Society The application was made under Rule 7 of the rules framed under the Hyderabad Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner as President of the Co-operative Society rejected their application. Thereupon they preferred an appeal under Rule 7-A to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (first respondent) from the order of the President. The Deputy Registrar allowed the appeal and directed respondents 2 to 15 to be admitted as members of the Society. This order is now impugn ed by the President of the Co-operative Society in these writ proceedings.

(2.) The main ground on which this writ petition is rested is that Rule 7-A which provides for an appeal from the order of the President of the Society to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies is ultra virus the Act and that therefore, the order which the Deputy Registrar passed in the appeal is null and void. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has invited ray attention to Sections 53 (2), 56 (6) and 66-C of the Act. These sections provide remedies by way of appeal and revision from certain orders passed by the Registrar and the Liquidator under the Act. The argument is that these provisions show that whenever the legislature intended to provide remedies of appeal and revision, it resorted to express enactments to achieve the object. But no section of the Act provides for an appeal against an order refusing to admit a person as a member of the Society. It is further submitted that a right of appeal must be conferred by the main enactment itself and not by means of a subordinate legislation. Rule 7-A made by the Government is therefore outside the contemplation of the Act and consequently invalid.

(3.) The respondents counter these contentions by claiming that Rule 7-A is intra virus the Act and falls properly within the scope of the rule-making powers conferred on the Government by Section 71 of the Act.