ORDER S.M.N. Raina, J. 1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 2. The petitioner is a member of the Shilpakar Majdoor Sangh, Shivpuri, a society registered under the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The Committee of the Society was superseded on 11-9-65 under section 53 of the Act and Shri Brij Nandan Lal Kulshreshtha was appointed as Officer-in-charge to manage the affairs of the Society. The supersession was initially for a period of two years but it was extended from time to time. The maximum period of three years prescribed under subsection (3) of section 53 of the Act expired on 10-9-68. The period has, however, been further extended for a period of two years by the Registrar with the sanction of the State Government accorded under section 91 of the Act. At the general meeting of the Society held on 30-3-69 the Bye-laws regarding qualifications of the members of the Society was amended as under :- In pursuance of this amendment the Officer-in-charge issued a notice to the petitioner intimating him that he was no longer qualified to be a member of the Society (vide Annexure B to the petition). Being aggrieved thereby the petitioner has come up before this Court and has challenged the action of the Officer-in-charge on various grounds which we shall presently consider. 3. The first contention of Shri H. G. Mishra, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the period of supersession of the Committee of the Society could not be extended beyond the period of three years as required by subsection (3) of section 53 of the Act in the manner it has been done. In this connection it would be pertinent to refer section 91 of the Act which empowers the State Government to direct that the provisions of the Act shall apply to a Society with such modifications as may be specified in the order. The relevant order of the State Government in this connection is Annexure B to the Return. By the order dated 16-9-68 the State Government with reference to its powers under section 91 of the Act accorded sanction for extension of the period of supersession of the Committee of the Society for a further period of two years i. e., upto 10-9-70. 4. By the order dated 16-9-68 the State Government with reference to its powers under section 91 of the Act accorded sanction for extension of the period of supersession of the Committee of the Society for a further period of two years i. e., upto 10-9-70. 4. Under section 91 the State Government is competent to exempt any society from any of the provisions of the Act or may direct that such provisions shall apply to such society with such modifications as may be specified in the order. Although the order dated 16-9-68 (Annexure B to the Return) is not happily worded but, in our view in substance it means that the Government in exercise of its powers under section 91 of the Act relaxed the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 53 of the Act to the extent specified in the order. This was clearly within the powers of the State Government and as such we are of the view that the extension of the period is perfectly lawful. 5. The next point that has been urged before us is that the notice which purports to terminate the membership of the petitioner (vide Annexure B to the petition) is invalid for two reasons. In the first place, the Officer-in-charge was not competent to issue such a notice. Secondly, it amounts virtually to expelling the petitioner without giving him an opportunity to show cause against the aforesaid action. We have carefully examined the provisions of the Act, the Rules and Bye laws. We do not find any provision in the Act or the Rules which may enable a Society to expel or to terminate the membership of an existing member by altering the qualifications for membership of the Society. Section 19 of the Act lays down as to who can be admitted as a member of the Society, and Rule 15 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1962, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') lays down disqualifications for membership. It is obvious and it has not been disputed that the petitioner is duly qualified under section 19 and has not incurred any disqualification as specified in Rule 15 of the Rules. 6. It is obvious and it has not been disputed that the petitioner is duly qualified under section 19 and has not incurred any disqualification as specified in Rule 15 of the Rules. 6. It is no doubt true that under Clause (i) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of the Rules the Society is competent to lay down terms and conditions of admission of members, but the bye-laws so made can provide only for the conditions of admission and will relate to the persons who are to be admitted as members in future. We have also been referred to Clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rules 6 of the Rules which empowers a Society to make bye-laws regarding the procedure to be followed in cases of withdrawal, ineligibility and death of members. But the Bye-laws framed under this Rule only deal with the procedure to be followed in such cases. They cannot provide for the termination of the membership or expelling a member by altering the conditions of admission of a member. 7. We may have also refer to the provisions of Rule 18. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 18 lays down that the committee of a society may, by a resolution passed at a meeting, expel a member on the grounds specified therein. None of these grounds is applicable to the present case. It is, therefore, clear that the Society is not competent to expel a member on the ground that the qualifications for admission have been subsequently changed. In our view in a matter like this the only provision in the Rules is sub-rule (2) of Rule 18 which confers on the Registrar a power to expel a member if the conditions laid down therein are fulfilled. The Officer-in-charge, who exercises the powers of the committee, cannot take any action to expel a member or to terminate his membership on the ground that he does not fulfil the conditions of admission laid down by the Society after his admission. We may here incidentally mention that termination of membership, may involve a monetary loss as well as loss of status and this can be brought about only under an express provision of the Act or the Rules. Since the action taken by the Officer-in-charge is not in pursuance of any power conferred by the Act or the Rules the action is patently illegal and is, therefore, liable to be quashed. Since the action taken by the Officer-in-charge is not in pursuance of any power conferred by the Act or the Rules the action is patently illegal and is, therefore, liable to be quashed. In this view of the matter we need not consider the other contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that he has been prejudiced as he was not given any opportunity to show cause against the aforesaid action. 8. On behalf of the respondents it was urged-that since the petitioner has submitted this dispute to the Registrar under section 64 of the Act this Court should not deal with the matter. Shri Mishra for the petitioner contended that the dispute of this nature does not fall within the purview of section 64 of the Act. We do not think it is necessary for us to express any opinion on this question. Since the action of the Officer-in-charge is patently illegal we consider it proper to interfere and quash the order at this stage. 9. The petition is, therefore, allowed and the notice (Annexure B to the petition) is hereby quashed. In circumstances of this case we do not make any order as to costs. The outstanding amount of security shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed