GOPI MATH, J. ( 1 ) THESE ara thna gpscial appeals against the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated February 9, 1971. By that order the learned Single Judge partly allowed the writ petition filed by the committee of management of meerut. Wholesale Central Consumers Co-opsrative stores Ltd. , hereinafter referred to as the stores, to the extent that the impugned order of the Deputy Registrar, in so far as it suspends the Chairman of the Society was illegal and ineffective. The writ petition out of which these appeals arise was directed against a order of the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative society, Meerut, dated Augusts, 1970 passed under section 35 (2) of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the act. By the impugned order the deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Maerut, placed the chairman of the stores under suspension and appointed Sfi j, D. Gaiha, Assistant Registrar, Consumers Co-Operative societies, U. P. as the Administrator of the Stores. ( 2 ) THE learned Single Judge by the order under appeal maintained the order of suspension of the Committee of management and the appointment of the Administrator in its place but declared the suspension of the Chairman as illegal and ineffective, as according to him the Committee of management did not include the Chairman. ( 3 ) SPECIAL Appeal No. 127 of 1971 has been filed Sir j. 0. Gaiha, against the order of the learned Single Judge declaring the suspension of the Chairman of the Society as ineffective. ( 4 ) SPECIAL Appeal No. 240 of 1971 has been filed by the Committee of Management of the Meerut. Whole sale central Consumers Co-operati\/e Stores Ltd. against the ordar of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition and upholding the suspension of the Committee of Management and appointment of Sri Gaiha as the Administrator in its place. ( 5 ) SPECIAL Appeal No. 250 of 1971 has been filed by the deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies Meerut, challenging the order of the learned Single Judge declaring the suspsnsion of the Chairman of the Sociaty as illegal and ineffective. This appeal has not yet been admitted. Counsel for the parties are agreed that this appeal may also be disposed of an merits in the light of the judgment in Special Appaal No. 127 of 1971. This appeal has not yet been admitted. Counsel for the parties are agreed that this appeal may also be disposed of an merits in the light of the judgment in Special Appaal No. 127 of 1971. ( 6 ) THESE three special appeals rasie common questions of law and fact and may accordingly be disposed of by a common judgment, ( 7 ) THE controversy in the abave appeals is confined to the following two points : (1) Whether the Deputy Registrar had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order dated Augusts, 1970 under sub section (2) of Section 35 of the Act as he had not first taken any action under sub-section (1) of the Act ? and (2) Whether the Committee of. Management under section 35 (2) of the Act includes the Chairman and the supersession of the Committee leads to the suspension of thechairman thereof ? ( 8 ) THE fist point is the main question involved in Special appeal No. 240 of 4971, and the second point is the main question involved in Special Appeal No. 127 of 1971. ( 9 ) THE learned Single Judge held that the Deputy Registrar after forming the requisite opinion and "deciding to take action" under sub-section (1) of section 35 of the Act took the further action of giving direction for the preparation of the charge-sheet and thereafter passed the impugned order suspending the Committee of Management. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant, however, urged that in the instant case the Deputy Registrar passed the impugned order under sub-section (2) of section 35 of the Act merely upon the formation of an opinion by him that suspension of the Committee of Management was necessary without any further action under section 35 (1) of the Act. So it is to be seen whether section 35 (2) of the Act applies to the facts of the instant case. So it is to be seen whether section 35 (2) of the Act applies to the facts of the instant case. ( 11 ) SECTION 35 (1) and (2) reads: "35 (1) Where, in the opinion of the Registrar, the committee of Management of any co-operative society persistently makes default or is negligent in the performance of the duties imposed on it by this Act or the rules or the bye-laws of the Society or commits any act which is prejudicial to the interest of the Society or its Members, or is otherwise not functioning properly, the Registrar, after affording the committee of Management a reasonable opportunity of being heard and obtaining the opinion of the general body of the Society in a general meeting called for the purpose in the manner prescribed may by order in writing, supersede the Committee of managent. Provided that where, under the prescribed circumstances, it is not feasible to convene a general meeting of the general body of the Society, the Registrar may dispense with the requirement of obtaining the opinion of the General body of the society. (2) Where the Registrar, while proceeding to take action under sub-section (1) isof opinion that suspension of the Committee of management during the proceedings in necessary in the interest of the society, he may suspend the committee of management which shall the re-upon case to function, and make such arrangement of the thtnks proper for the management of the affairs of the society till the proceedings are completed; provided that if the committee of management so suspended is not superseded, it shall be re-instated and the period, during which in has remained suspended, shall count towards its term. (Emphasis added.) ( 12 ) THE Crucial words are "while proceeding to take action under sub-section (1)". According to the appellant, namely, the committee of management of Meerut whole sale consumers Co-operative Society, the Registrar can be sale to take action under sub-section (1) only when he has formed the requiste opinion and served a charge-sheet ora show cause notice on the Society. Since no charge sheet or show cause notice was. according to the appellant, served on the appellant no action could be taken under sub-section (2) of Sec. 35, of the Act. A Division Bench of this Court in Consumers co-operetive Stores Ltd. , v. Deputy Registrar Co-operative society, U. P. Meerut. (Civil Misc. Since no charge sheet or show cause notice was. according to the appellant, served on the appellant no action could be taken under sub-section (2) of Sec. 35, of the Act. A Division Bench of this Court in Consumers co-operetive Stores Ltd. , v. Deputy Registrar Co-operative society, U. P. Meerut. (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 266 of 1970 decided on January 19, 1970) held that the words "while proceeding to take action under sub-section (1), in sub-section (2) of section 35 of the Act do not mean that action under sub-section (2) can be taken only after a show cause notice had; been issued under sub-section (1) of section 35. What that provision requires is the formation of an opinion followed by some steps in pursuance there of. Paragraphs 1 to 5 of the impugned order recited the formation of opinion paragraph 6 stated that the Registrar was proceeding to take action under sub-section (1) of section 35 of the act for the supersession of the Committee of Management. It further stated that the show cause notice with detailed charges was following shortly. It is apparent that at the time of the issue of the order under sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the Act the preparation of the charge-sheet was already in progress. The Deputy Registrar was accordingly proceeding to take action under sub-section (1) at the time when he was passing the impugned order under sub-section (2) of Section 35. In view of the afore mantioned facts there was sufficient compliance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 35. The learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition in so far as it challenged the order or the suspension of the Committee of Management of the Meerut Co-operative Society Ltd. ( 13 ) SPECIAL Appeal No. 127 of 1971 relates to the question as to whether the Committee of Management in section 35 (2) of the Act includes the Chairman. The learned single Judge held that the Committee of Management under section 35 of the Act does not include the Chairman of the co-operative Societies and no action can be taken against him under the section, tf we may say so with respect we are unable to agree with this view. The provisions of Section 35 (5)of the Act may be noticed in this regard. The provisions of Section 35 (5)of the Act may be noticed in this regard. Section 35 (5) reads :"35 (5) The Committee, Administrator or Administrators appointed under sub-section (3) and (4) shall subject to any directions which the Registrar may from time to time give, have the power to exercise all or any of the functions of the Committee of Management or of any officer of the Society and shall be deemed for all purpose under this Act, the rules and the bye-laws of the Society to be the Committee of Management. " ( 14 ) A Chairman is an officer of the Society within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the Act. Under sub-section (5)of Section 35 of the Act, the Administrator appointed under sub-section (3) shall have the power to exercise all or any of the functions of the Cammittee of Management or of any officer of the Seciety. Thus the Administrator would have full control over the affairs of the Society and would replace the Committee of Management as well as the Chairman of the society. If the Chairman is not covered by the order issued under sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the Act, there would be two authorities controlling the affairs of the Society, one the Administrator and the other the Chairman. The Society would, under the circumstances, not run smoothly. The chairman could take steps to impede or retard the proper functioning of the Society by the Administrator. Section 35 (5)of the Act indicates a single control over the affairs of the society. The purpose of the Act and the combined effect of the various sub-clauses of Section 35 of the Act lead to the same result. A Committee of Management is superseded with a view to take away the powers and the functions of the committee as well as of its officers and to vest them in the administrator appointed by the Registrar or the new Committee appointed by him, No duel control of the affairs of the Society is contemplated after an order of supersession under Section 35 of the Act is passed. Once the Committee of Management ceases to exist, the Chairman of a such a Committee will not survive. It is difficult to conciave of a Chairman without a committee. Once the Committee of Management ceases to exist, the Chairman of a such a Committee will not survive. It is difficult to conciave of a Chairman without a committee. Section 30 of the Act, provides that every Co-operative society shall have a Chairman elected in accordance with the provisions contained in the rules and the bye-laws the Chairman accordingly is a part of the Committed of management of that Co-operative Society. ( 15 ) THE learned Single Judge was largely influenced by the definition of the expression "committee, of Management in Section 2 (P) of the Act. According to him, since the expression "committee of Management" does not, in Section 2 (e) expressly make reference to Chairman, the Chairman cannot be deemed to be included in that expression. But it appears to us that the term "committee of Management" in section 35 of the Act includes a Chairman of by necessary implication. The object and the language of Section 35 (5)of the Act support this construction. If the Chairman is not included in the expression "committee of Management," the purpose under lying supersession would be defeated. ( 16 ) IN the result Special Appeal No. 127 of 1971 is allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge declaring the suspentibn of the Chairman of the Society as illegal is set aside. ( 17 ) SPECIAL Appeal No. 240 of 1971 is dismissed and the order of the learned Single Judge holding the suspension of the Committee of Management as valid is affirmed. ( 18 ) SPECIAL Appeal No. 250 of 1971 is allowed in the light of the observations made in Special Appeal No. 127 of 1971. ( 19 ) THE appellants in Special Appeal No. 127 of 1971 and Special. Appeal No. 250 of 1970 shall get costs. But there shall be only set of costs which the aforesaid appellants shall share half and half. (Decided accordingly.) .