( 1 ) THE contesting parties in these two petitions are the same and the points for consideration are also the same. Hence they are clubbed together. There is in Dundur, a village of Gadag taluk of Dharwar district, a cooperative society called the Dundur Gramaseva Sahakari Sangha Unlimited. In September 1968 the annual elections are said to have been held to the managing committee of the society. The petitioner H. V. Dyavanur states that there were only nine valid nominations of himself and eight others for the nine vacancies to be filled, and that all the nine of them were declared elected without contest and the results announced at the annual general meeting held on September 28, 1968. He further states that at a subsequent meeting of the committee he was elected chairman. ( 2 ) THE respondents, however, have a different version altogether. They complain that their nominations could not be presented because the office of the society was locked at the relevant period, and that therefore they sent the same by registered post so as to reach within the time fixed for the receipt of nominations. They further state that even on the date fixed for scrutiny, the office of the society was locked and remained locked till 5 P. M. Subsequently, according to them, they themselves along with other members totalling about 52 held a meeting at which respondents 1 to 8 and another person by name B. F. Hugar were elected as members of the Managing Committee. ( 3 ) SUBSEQUENTLY the first respondent made an application to the munsiff-Magistrate at Gadag under S. 31 (2) of the Mysore Co-operative societies Act, 1959 for securing possession of the records. The Magistrate issued an ex parte warrant. The petitioner appeared and filed objections contending that he and eight others constituted the committee, and not the first respondent and others as claimed by the respondents. The Magistrate made a reference to the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, gadag who sent a reply, which the Magistrate calls a report, stating that the first respondent is the Chairman of the legally constituted new commitee of the society. He therefore ordered the seizure of the society's records from the possession of the petitioner and others and delivery thereof to the first respondent. Against the said order made by the Magistrate on october 10. He therefore ordered the seizure of the society's records from the possession of the petitioner and others and delivery thereof to the first respondent. Against the said order made by the Magistrate on october 10. 1968 the petitioner presented the first of two writ petitions w. P. 3755 of 1968. It was admitted on 29th October 1968 and stay of execution of the Magistrate's order was also granted. Thereafter the respondents appeared and made an application for vacating the stay on the ground that the warrant had already been executed before the interim order of stay was made. The stay was therefore vacated on 10th Dec. 1968. ( 4 ) SUBSEQUENTLY the first respondent made another application to the same Magistrate for securing possession of certain further records stating that the possession thereof could not be secured on the earlier occasion. The Magistrate once again directed the issue of a warrant on January 20, 1969. That order was brought up before this Court in W. P. 675 of 1969. In this case aso the interim stay granted was subsequently vacated on the same ground. ( 5 ) MR. DATAR, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has raised two principal grounds of attack. Firstly he states that there is no power to issue more than one warrant under S. 31 (2 ). Secondly he contends that in the circumstances of this case the Magistrate had no jurisdiction whatever to act under Section 31 (2 ). ( 6 ) WE do not see any substance in the first of the two contentions, because, if there is jurisdiction or power in given circumstances to take action under S. 31 (2), it cannot be said that the power or the jurisdiction is exhausted by the issue of the warrant. If the circumstances so require the Magistrate, in our opinion, would still have the power to issue a second or subsequent warrant with a view to give full effect to the provisions of the section. ( 7 ) THE second question of jurisdiction, however, is a matter of substance. It is also found discussed in two earlier decisions of this Court and what remains to be considered in this case is only the difficulty arising out of the peculiar facts of the case. ( 8 ) SECTION 31 of the Act reads as follows:"31. ( 7 ) THE second question of jurisdiction, however, is a matter of substance. It is also found discussed in two earlier decisions of this Court and what remains to be considered in this case is only the difficulty arising out of the peculiar facts of the case. ( 8 ) SECTION 31 of the Act reads as follows:"31. Securing possession of records, etc.- (1) If the committee of a co-operative society is reconstituted at a general meeting of the society or the committee of a co-operative society is removed by the registrar under S. 30 or if the society is ordered to be wound up under s. 72, the outgoing members of the committee shall hand over charge of the records and property of the society to the new committee or the administrators or the Liquidator, as the case may be. (2) If the outgoing members of the committee do not hand over, or in any manner obstruct the taking charge of the records and property of the society by the new committee or the Administrators or the liquidator, then without prejudice to any other action, the new committee or the Administrators or the Liquidator may apply to the magistrate, within whose jurisdiction the society functions for securing the records end property of the society. On receipt of the application, the Magistrate may, by a warrant authorise any police officer, not below the rank of Sub-Inspector, to enter and search any place where the records, and property are Kept or are believed to be kept and to seize such records and property; and the records and property so seized shall be handed over to the new committee or Administrators of the society cr the Liquidator, as the case may be. " ( 9 ) ON a plain reading of the section it is clear that the mandate of the law is to assist a reconstituted committee or an Administrator or a liquidator to secure possession of the records of the society in question. The purposes undoubtedly is to assist the properly re-constituted committee or a properly appointed Administrator or Liquidator. It necessarily involves, in our opinion, a prohibition against assisting anybody other than a properly reconstituted committee or a properly appointed Administrator or Liquidator. ( 10 ) THAT is also the view taken by this Court or is implicit in the decisions of this Court in two earlier cases. It necessarily involves, in our opinion, a prohibition against assisting anybody other than a properly reconstituted committee or a properly appointed Administrator or Liquidator. ( 10 ) THAT is also the view taken by this Court or is implicit in the decisions of this Court in two earlier cases. ( 11 ) IN the first or those cases in Cubbonpet Silk Handloom Weavers' co-operative Society Ltd. v. Govindarajulu, (1966) 2 Mys. L. J. 207, it was held that the old committee is bound to hand over the records of the society to the re-constituted committee, and not to any and everybody, and that therefore before the Magistrate can take action under sub-sec. (2) of S. 31 there must be a re-constituted committee. In the said case there was a dispute relating to election to the committee pending adjudication under S. 70 of the Act when the Magistrate was moved under S. 31. Their Lordships held that the Magistrate had no power to go into the question which is covered by s. 70 of the Act, and further that, because the election to the committee was in dispute and the said dispute was pending adjudication under section 70 of the Act, the Magistrate cannot take any action under S. 31 (2) till the disposal of the said dispute. ( 12 ) THE second case was Writ Petition 42 of 1969, which was disposed of on 14th April, 1969. The judgment is not reported. Following the earlier Bench ruling, the second Bench also held that the first requisite on which the Magistrate should satisfy himself is that the application to him has been made by the duly re-constituted committee. Upon facts their lordships iound that whereas bye-law 20 of the society provided that the committee should consist of nine members, the application to the Magistrate had been made only by five members. The Magistrate, entertaining doubts about ihe existence of a legally re-constituted committee refused to take action under S 31. In the said case this Court held that the Magistrate acted rightly in refusing to take action. An application for special leave to appeal against the said decision of this Court made to the Supreme court was dismissed on the 6th November, 1969. In the said case this Court held that the Magistrate acted rightly in refusing to take action. An application for special leave to appeal against the said decision of this Court made to the Supreme court was dismissed on the 6th November, 1969. ( 13 ) NOW from these rulings the following propositions clearly flow: the power of the Magistrate is to secure possession of the records of the society for the benefit of a legally reconstituted committee or a legally appointed Administrator or Liquidator Though any dispute relating to the legality of such reconstitution or appointment is not within the competence or jurisdiction of the Magistrate to adjudicate upon, has own jurisdiction to act under S. 31 is subject to the pre-condition that he should be prima jade satisfied about the legality of the re-constitution or appointment, as the case may be. If there is any doubt in that regard or if any doubt lingers after he has made a preliminary investigation in that regard he should not act under Section 31 (2 ). ( 14 ) SO far as the Administrator or Liquidator is concerned, no difficulty can arise. Either of them can produce an authenticated copy of the order appointing him as Administrator or the Liquidator as the case may be. The difficulty might arise only in the case of a committee. Even here, if there is a dispute touching the election or re-constitution of the committee pending adjudication under S. 70, the Magistrate should not act till the disposal of the said dispute by the Arbitrator under Section 70. ( 15 ) DIFFICULTIES arise only in cases where the Magistrate upon preliminary investigation or enquiry, finds reason to doubt the truth of the claim of the applicant before him about the legality of the re-constitution of the committee. To a great extent that question, in our opinion, is answered by the decision of this Court in W. P. No. 42 of 1969 in which this court upheld the Magistrate's order refusing to take action because of the existence of doubt. To a great extent that question, in our opinion, is answered by the decision of this Court in W. P. No. 42 of 1969 in which this court upheld the Magistrate's order refusing to take action because of the existence of doubt. ( 16 ) IT has however been argued that in majority of cases an application is likely to be made under S. 31 only if there is a dispute whether the re-constitution is genuine or not, and that to act upon the last decision of this Court as if it relates to all contingencies would in actual effect render S. 31 itself nugatory. While there is force in this contention, we do not think that the principle stated by this Court is inapplicable or should not be applied. The principle, in our opinion, is that the legality of the re-constituted committee is a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Magistrate under S. 31, and that if any doubt exists in that regard the Magistrate should not act. Because he has no power to clear that doubt by himself investigating the main question of law, the proper course for the Magistrate to take in such circumstances in view of the last two decisions of this Court appears to us to be the following. When an applicant appears before him for the issue of a warrant under S. 31 (2), he should ask from the applicant for prima facie evidence of the legality of the re-constituted committee or the committee which he claims to represent, or the legality of his appointment as Administrator or Liquidator. If he is prima facie satisfied he should issue a warrant. If not, he should not If the existence of a dispute is brought to his notice by opponents, then, if the dispute has already been referred under S. 70 and is pending adjudication he should postpone action till the disposal of those proceedings. If he is satisfied about the existence of a dispute and that dispute relates to the election or validity of the election of the re-constituted committee, then he should not take any action till the period of limitation prescribed for making a reference in regard to that dispute has expired. If he is satisfied about the existence of a dispute and that dispute relates to the election or validity of the election of the re-constituted committee, then he should not take any action till the period of limitation prescribed for making a reference in regard to that dispute has expired. If at the expiry of the said period no steps are taken for adjudication of the dispute, he may proceed upon the footing that the re-constitution is prima facie legal, or is no longer open to challenge at the instance of the opponents. If, however, the nature of the dispute is not limited to the validity of election to the re-constituted committee, but is complicated by the further claim by the opponents that they are the legally re-constituted committee, then he should not act at all under S. 31 (2), but leave the parties to settle their dispute in such way as may be open to them under the Co-operative Societies Act. ( 17 ) IN this view it appears to us that this was a case in which the Magistrate should not have acted under Section 31 (2) of the Act. ( 18 ) HENCE, if the matter had come up for disposal before us sufficiently earlier, there would clearly have been a case for quashing the order of the Magistrate impugned in these petitions. As, however, more than a year has elapsed since the alleged elections of September 1968 and subsequent elections might have taken place (both parties state that there have been such elections), we do not think any useful purpose will be served by quashing the orders at this stage. It is better and more proper in the circumstances to leave the parties to settle such disputes as may still exist between them by taking such proceedings as may be open to them under the Co-operative Societies Act. With these observations, we dismiss these writ petitions. --- *** --- .