Judgment :- 1. The petitioner, a Co-operative Society, which was engaged in the collection of black limeshells, applied for licence to collect white limeshells from Vembanad lake, when he was informed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, by Ext. P-1, dated May 20, 1958, that his request "cannot be conceded at present, as Government have restricted the issue of further licences for the collection of white limeshells". On March 26,1959, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued an official memorandum to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Alleppey, the material part of which reads: "The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Alleppey, will take immediate steps to register a Co-operative Society for the collection of white lime-shells with its head-quarters at Muhamma, in consultation with the Special Inspector of Limeshell Co operative Societies and the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kottayam so that there may not be any conflict in the working of the two existing societies Shri P.S. Bahuleyan, President, Vembanad Limeshell Collectors Union, is being requested to contact the Deputy Registrar who will render the necessary help in the organisation of the Co-operative Society mentioned above. The Deputy Registrar will report within a week about the action taken in the matter". 2. The Registration of Co-operative Societies is governed by the Travancore-Cochin Co-operative Societies Act, 1951. By S.9, sub-section (1) of that Act, it is provided, that an application for registration has to be made to the Registrar; sub section (2) ordains, that the application shall be signed in the prescribed manner and sub-sec. (3) requires, that it shall be accompanied by the proposed bylaws of the Society, and that the persons on whose behalf the application is made, shall furnish such information as the Registrar may require. S.10 confers power on the Registrar to register a Society if he is satisfied, that it has complied with the provisions of the Act and the Rules, and that its proposed bylaws are not contrary to them. Under the proviso to S.10, the Registrar has power to refuse registration, & he is bound to send a copy of the order of refusal to the applicant within seven days. An appeal will lie to the Government from the order of refusal, within two months from the date on which the order is sent to the applicant. Under the proviso to S.10, the Registrar has power to refuse registration, & he is bound to send a copy of the order of refusal to the applicant within seven days. An appeal will lie to the Government from the order of refusal, within two months from the date on which the order is sent to the applicant. Thus, by S.10, the Registrar is called upon to exercise a statutory function in deciding whether a Society should be registered or not, and Government could exercise only an appellate jurisdiction in a case of refusal to register. In my judgment, the operative part of Ext. P-2 extracted above, constitutes both a violation of the procedure prescribed by S.9, and an abrogation of the power conferred by S.10 of the Act; it has, in truth and substance, taken away the discretion vested in the Registrar by the Act. He is not to act under the dictation of some person, to whom authority is not given by law. In the present case, instead of exercising his discretion, the Registrar has, on the strength of Government memorandum No. 45197/58-8 Agri (ag. 63) of March, 1959, referred to in Ext. P-2, directed the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies to take steps to register a Co-operative Society for the collection of white limeshells. This amounts to an interference by Government with the exercise of his judgment by the Registrar, and an abdication by the latter of his statutory power for sanctioning or refusing to sanction the registration of a Co-operative Society. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent stated before me, that this should not preclude his party from making an application for registration under the Co-operative Societies Act; that right is available to him under S.9 of the Act and is not in any way touched by the present order. The same learned counsel also pointed out, that the policy decision taken by Government in granting licences embodied in Ext. P2, ought not to be interfered with; I do not consider it to be the duty of this court to deal with it either. In this petition, it is only necessary to quash the offending part of Ext. P2 extracted above, and I do so accordingly. The petition is ordered as above. No costs.