( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed for quashing the order of the first respondent, the Mysore Co-operative appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in Appeal Nos. 369 and 370 of 1965 which arose out of Dispute No. 48 of 1957-58 on the file of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Arbitrator Chickmagalur. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is the Society which instituted Dispute No. 48 of 1957-58 against the respondents, 2, 3 and 4 for the recovery of a sum of rs. 11,5000. It is not disputed that these proceedings were initiated by one mr. Bapat, who was the Director in charge of the Co-operative Stores. The proceedings once ended in ex parte decree, but later on, it was set aside by the Revenue Appellate Tribunal and the matter was remanded to the 5th respondent for disposal in accordance with law. After the remand, the case was posted for hearing on 15-7-1964. The petitioner, who is the honorary Secretary of the concerned Stores, was served with the notice. But prior to that one H. S. Srikantaiah was appointed as Joint Secretary of the Co-operative Stores and a communication was sent to the 5th respondent stating that notice may be issued to the said Joint Secretary. Later the 5th respondent issued the notice again to the Honorary Secretary for hearing on 28-8-1965. He sent a reply as on the earlier occasion stating that the notice may be sent to the Joint Secretary of the Co-operative Stores. However the case came to be adjourned to 16-9-1965 and then to 17-9-1965, on which date the dispute was dismissed by the 5th respondent. ( 3 ) IT is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that he received the endorsement intimating the dismissal of the petition on 27-10-1965 and thereupon he filed an application under Rule 31 of the Mysore co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 on 24-11-1965. In respect of this application, the 5th respondent issued an endorsement directing the petitioner to file his objections before the higher authorities for redress. Therefore, it is clear that the Assistant Regstrar did not deal with the application of the petitioner-the Co-operative Stores-on its merits. In respect of this application, the 5th respondent issued an endorsement directing the petitioner to file his objections before the higher authorities for redress. Therefore, it is clear that the Assistant Regstrar did not deal with the application of the petitioner-the Co-operative Stores-on its merits. He did not go into the question as to whether there was sufficient reason for the absence of the petitioner -Co-operative Stores before him on the day he disposed of the dispute ex parte. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order of the Assistant Registrar in Appeal No. 369/65 before the first respondent. The petitioner also filed an appeal against the order dated 17-9-1965 in appeal No. 370/65 disputing the correctness of the ex parte order. By a common judgment, the first respondent has dismissed the two appeals. Against this order of the first respondent, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. ( 4 ) THE contention of Sri Nanjundaswamy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that the Tribunal erred in holding that the order of the Assistant Registrar and Arbitrator markedex. C in the case is not appealable and that the application made by the petitioner is untenable, taking the view that the dismissal of the dispute ex parte is neither a decision nor an award made by the 5th respondent. ( 5 ) THE Tribunal has held that "no application for setting aside the suit can be made under that rule", the Rule referred to being Rule 31 (4) b) of the Mysore Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960. It appears to us that the view taken by the first respondent is not in accordance with law. Under s. 71 of the Mysore Co-operative Societies Act, hereinafter referred to as the act, the Registrar has power to transfer the dispute for disposal to any person who has been invested by the State Government with powers in that behalf. It is not disputed that the 5th respondent is invesed with the power of disposal of the dispute transferred to him by the Registrar. This power implies that the Assistant Registrar has power to dispose of the dispute on merits or ex parte. The question for consideration is whether this power of disposal includes the power to deal with applications to set aside ex parte decision at the instance of the aggrieved party. This power implies that the Assistant Registrar has power to dispose of the dispute on merits or ex parte. The question for consideration is whether this power of disposal includes the power to deal with applications to set aside ex parte decision at the instance of the aggrieved party. Our attention is invited to the provisions of Rule 31 (4) (b) of the Mysore Co-operative societies Rules, 1960. The said provision is as hereunder:"r. 31 (4) (a ). The Registrar, the Arbitrator, or other persons deciding the dispute shall after service of summons on the parties concerned, in a manner prescribed by these rules, record a brief note of the evidence of the parties and witnesses who attend and upon the evidence so recorded and after consideration of any documentary evidence produced by the parties, shall give a decision or award, as the case may be, in accordance with justice, equity and good conscience. (b) The decision or award given shall be in writing and pronounced in open Court. If a party duly summoned fails to attend, the dispute may be decided ex parte" Ex parte decisions on awards may, on sufficient cause for non-attendance being shown, be set aside by the Registrar, and the dispute ordered to be re-taken on the file and disposed of: provided that no application for setting aside an ex parte decision or award shall lie, unless made within thirty days from the date of such decision or award, then the party for whose non-attendance, such decision or award was made, had been duly served in the dispute or in other cases within thirty days from the date of knowledge of such decision or award having been made. " ( 6 ) IN Clause (a) a reference is made to the Registrar, Arbitrator or other person deciding the dispute. In Clause (b) reference is made only to the Registrar. The contention of Sri Ramachandra, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents 2, 3 and 4 is that it is only the Registrar who has power to entertain the application to set aside the ex pane decision or award and the Assistant Registrar cannot entertain the application of that kind. In Clause (b) reference is made only to the Registrar. The contention of Sri Ramachandra, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents 2, 3 and 4 is that it is only the Registrar who has power to entertain the application to set aside the ex pane decision or award and the Assistant Registrar cannot entertain the application of that kind. ( 7 ) IT appears to us that this contention is not in conformity with the provisions of S. 71 (1) (b) of the Act, which empower the Registrar to transfer the dispute for 'disposal' to an officer invested with powers. The word 'disposal' is wide enough to cover the power to deal with applications to set aside ex parte decisions or orders. It will be seen that under S. 129 (2) (z) of the Act the State Government is empowered to make rules for the procedure to be followed in proceedings before the Registrar, Arbitrator or other person deciding disputes. It does not empower the State to vest the officer with power or to take away any power vested in any officer by the act. As stated already under S. 71 (b) of the Act, the 5th respondent to whom the dispute was transferred for disposal is an officer invested by the state Government with power in that behalf. Therefore this power cannot be curtailed by confining the power to deal with the applications to set aside the decisions or awards to the Registrar only. This view gets support from the decision of this Court in B. L. Papaichari v. Chickpet House building Society. An application had been made in that case to set aside the ex parte award, to the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Rule 31 (4) (b) of the Rules. The Assistant Registrar of Co-operative societies failed to dispose of the application. After referring to the provisions o Rule 31 (4) (b) this Court has observed:"it is therefore, obvious from this proviso that the application for setting aside an ex parte award can be made within 30 days from the date oi knowledge o such decision or award. The Assistant Registrar of Co-operative societies failed to dispose of the application. After referring to the provisions o Rule 31 (4) (b) this Court has observed:"it is therefore, obvious from this proviso that the application for setting aside an ex parte award can be made within 30 days from the date oi knowledge o such decision or award. Though the petition for setting aside the ex parte award was obviously made more than a year alter the award, it was the duty oi the Assistant liegistrar who passed the award, to have enquired into the matter and found out whether the application made was within time, whether the grounds stated for the absence were acceptable or not and then dispose of the application according to the provisions contained in Rule 31. The assistant Registrar, has, therefore, failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him under Rule 31 (4) of the Rules. " ( 8 ) THEREFORE we are of opinion that the 5th Respondent failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him in not deciding the application made by the petitioner to set aside the ex parte decision dismissing the claim. The view gains support from the fact that when the power to decide the main dispute is vested in the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, it cannot be the intention of the Government to exclude from the power of disposal the power to entertain applications to set aside ex parte decisions or awards. Therefore we have to understand the word 'registrar' used in rule 31 (4) (b) as including an officer invested with the powers for disposal under S. 71 (1) (b) of the Act. 22. Sri Ramachandra contended that the order of the 5th respondent is not an appealable order. This contention loses all its force in view of our finding that the order of the 5th respondent comes within the purview of S. 71 (1) (b) of the Act and therefore appealable under S. 105 (b) of the act. 7. For the abovesaid reasons, we set aside the order made by the first respondent and remand the matter to the 5th respondent directing him to consider the petitioner's application dated 24-11-1965 praying that the ex parte decision made on 17-9-1965 be set aside and dispose of the same according to law. With the above observation this petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. With the above observation this petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. --- *** ---