JUDGMENT H.N. Seth, J. - Sadan Sahakari Samiti Dakore, petitioner No. 1, is a primary Co-operative Society which is affiliated to the Jalaun District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Orai, a Central Society. Petitioner No. 2, Raghuvanshi Lal Gupta is the Chairman of the petitioner society, and Sri Ram Swamp Dubey was its delegate to the U. P. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Jalaun, Sri Ram Swarup Dubey had further been elected Chairman of the District Co-operative Bank, Jalaun. It is alleged that due to certain reasons respondent No. 1, and Daya Shanker Singh, was ill-disposed towards Sri Ram Swarup Dubey and wanted to see that ; he did not function as Chairman of the Central Society. With this end in view, Sri Daya Shanker Singh manoevred a fictitious complaint about the manner in which the affairs of the society were being conducted and by his order dated 26th of August, 1972, appointed Sri Jodhan Singh S. R. I. (respondent No. 2) as sole Arbitrator to resolve the alleged dispute. Thereafter, Sri Jodhan Singh, purporting to act as sole Arbitrator, passed an order dated 26-8-1972 appointing Sri Mukand Mohan Gupta, an Inspector of the Co-operative Society, Orai as Administrator for running the affairs of the ) Society. The petitioners have approached this Court for relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution and pray that the orders passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, appointing Sri Jodhan Singh as the sole Arbitrator and Sri Mukand Mohan Gupta as the Administrator of the Society, be quashed. 2. According to the petitioners, Sri Daya Shanker Singh, who was merely a District Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies Jalaun, had no jurisdiction to entertain, a dispute regarding the manner in which the affairs of the Society were being con-ducted and as such he could not refer it to the arbitration of Sri Jodhan Singh. Since Sri Jodhan Singh had not been validly appointed as an arbitrator, he had absolutely no jurisdiction to make an interim order appointing Shri Mukand Mohan, Sub-Inspector, Co-operative Societies Jalaun, as Administrator for running the affairs of the Society. Moreover, in view of the specific provisions contained in Section 35 of the Act which provides for appointment of an Administrator, it was not open to the Arbitrator to exercise that power under Sec. 71(3) of the Act. 3. Moreover, in view of the specific provisions contained in Section 35 of the Act which provides for appointment of an Administrator, it was not open to the Arbitrator to exercise that power under Sec. 71(3) of the Act. 3. Learned Standing counsel, appearing for the respondents, refuted the allegations of malafide and contend that by means of the Notification dated 24th of June, 1969, copy of which has been filed as Annexure III to the counter-affidavit, the power under Section 71, to refer a dispute for decision to an arbitrator, has been conferred upon respondent No. 1, who is a District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Shri Daya Shanker Singh was therefore fully competent to entertain the dispute and to refer the same to Sri Jodhan Singh, respondent No. 2, for arbitration. As an Arbitrator, Sri Jodhan Singh had, under Sec. 71(3) of the Act, all the power to pass such interlocutory orders including attachment of property as he thought necessary in the interest of justice. Since the complaint made against the Society was in regard to the manner in which its affairs were being conducted the Arbitrator had, in the interest of justice, ample jurisdiction to appoint an Administrator, notwithstanding the provision contained in Section 35 which have been enacted for meeting an entirely different contingency. In the circumstances, neither of the two orders passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 suffer from any error of jurisdiction. 4. Sec. 70 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act provides that if any dispute relating to the constitution, management or the business of the nature mentioned therein arises, it has to be referred to the Registrar for action in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules. It follows that the person raising the dispute has to approach the Registrar for getting the same resolved. The expression "Registrar" here includes not only the person who has been appointed as Registrar under the Act but also the person who has been appointed to assist the Registrar, as also those on whom the powers of Registrar have been conferred, as provided under Sec. 3(2) of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act. In this connection the Stale Government issued a Notification dated 24th of June, 1969 (Annexure III to the counter-affidavit.)" relevant portion of which reads as follows "In exercise of the powers under Sub-sec. In this connection the Stale Government issued a Notification dated 24th of June, 1969 (Annexure III to the counter-affidavit.)" relevant portion of which reads as follows "In exercise of the powers under Sub-sec. (2) of Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (U. P. Act XI of 1966), the Governor is pleased to confer, subject to the provisions of the said Act and the rules made thereunder, the powers of the Registrar under that Act and the rules, to be exercised as follows:- ... ...... .... ..... ...... ..... .... .... ... (2) An officer for the time being holding the post of Deputy Registrar/ Assistant Registrar, Incharge of a division, shall exercise the powers of the Registrar under the Act and the rules within the area of his jurisdiction. ... ...... .... ..... ...... ..... (3) An officer for the time being holding the post of the District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U.P. shall exercise, the powers of the Registrar - (a)............. (b) Under Secs. 70, 71, 98, 109 and 115 of the Act and Rules 312(c), 331, 332, 336, 365, 366, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 377 and 378 in respect of all the Co-operative Societies, having headquarters within the area of his jurisdiction; and ..... ...... ......." It is significant to note that according to paragraph 2 of this Notification, all the powers of the Registrar including those under Secs. 70 and 71 of the Act have been conferred upon the Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar incharge of a Division within the area of their respective jurisdiction. However, powers under Secs. 70 and 71 and some other provisions of the Act and the rules, have also been conferred upon a District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Thus according to the aforementioned Notification power to entertain a dispute under Section 70 of the Act and to refer the same to an Arbitrator under Section 71 can apart from a person who has been appointed as Registrar, be exercised also by (1) Deputy Registrar (2) Assistant Registrar, incharge of a Division and (3) District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies. However, as the preamble of the Notification shows, the confirment of this power on various officials is subject to the provisions of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act and the rules made thereunder. However, as the preamble of the Notification shows, the confirment of this power on various officials is subject to the provisions of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act and the rules made thereunder. Accordingly the power conferred by this Notification upon various official can be exercised only in the circumstances and in accordance with' various provisions contained in the Act and the Rules. 5. Rule 229(1) provides for the circumstances in which the dispute relating to property or money claimed, has to be referred to the District Assistant Registrar, or the Deputy Registrar, or the Assistant Registrar incharge of the Division, or the Additional Registrar, or the Registrar himself. Similarly rule 229(2) lays down that a dispute relating to the constitution of the Committee of management or election or appointment of any office-bearer or a delegate of a Co-operative Society has in the case of an apex Co-operative Society to be referred to the Additional Registrar dealing with the apex Society concerned and in the case of other Co-operative Societies to the District Magistrate of the District to which the Society belongs. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 229, which applies to the fact of the instant case, lays down that where the dispute relates to any matter not covered by sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2), the reference is to be made to the Deputy Registrar or to the Assistant Registrar Incharge of the Division, as the case may be. It also provides the circumstances in which such dispute in between two or more Co-operative Societies is to be referred to the Registrar, appointed under Sub-sec. (1) of Section 3 of the Act. 6. It is true that under the Notification dated 24th June 1969, the power exercised by the Registrar under Secs. 70 and 71 of the Act has been conferred on the District Assistant Registrar, but as its preamble indicates, exercise of this power is subject to the Rules framed under the Act. It follows that the power conferred on various officials by this Notification cannot be exercised contrary to the provisions of the Rules, including Rule 229, framed under the Co-operative Societies Act. Accordingly, the Notification dated 24th of June, 1969 enables the District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U.P. to exercise only such powers of the Registrar, under Secs. 70 and 71 of the Act, which lie has been empowered to exercise under Rule 229. Accordingly, the Notification dated 24th of June, 1969 enables the District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U.P. to exercise only such powers of the Registrar, under Secs. 70 and 71 of the Act, which lie has been empowered to exercise under Rule 229. He cannot exercise such powers under those sections which according to rule 229 are to be exercised by other officials and not by him. It is admitted before me that the dispute of the nature, which has arisen in the instant case, is one which is covered by a Rule 229 (3) of the Rules which lays down that such a dispute is to be referred either to the Deputy Registrar or Assistant Registrar incharge of the Division. Accordingly it could be referred to respondent No. 1 only if he was either a Deputy Registrar or an Assistant Registrar incharge of the Division. Respondent No. 1, who is District Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative Societies is neither an Assistant Registrar incharge of a Division nor is he a Deputy Registrar. He was therefore not at all competent to entertain the dispute involved in the present ease. The power under Section 71, either to decide the dispute himself or to refer it for decision to an Arbitrator, could be exercised only by a person who could entertain it under Section 70 read with Rule 229 of the rules framed under the Act. A person to whom a dispute cannot be referred under Section 70 of the Act cannot, under Section 71 of the Act, either decide it or refer it to an Arbitrator for decision. Since the dispute of the nature involved in this case could not possibly be entertained by respondent No. 1 under Sec. 70(1), he had no jurisdiction under Section 71 of the Act to appoint Shri Jodhan Singh as an Arbitrator. The very appointment of Sri Jodhan Singh as an Arbitrator, being without jurisdiction, he could not exercise any powers under Sec. 71(3) of the Act for making any interlocutory order interfering with the affairs of the Society. The very appointment of Sri Jodhan Singh as an Arbitrator, being without jurisdiction, he could not exercise any powers under Sec. 71(3) of the Act for making any interlocutory order interfering with the affairs of the Society. In this view of the matter it is unnecessary for me to go into the question whether in view of the provisions contained in Section 35 of the Act, it was open to the Arbitrator, to appoint an administrator for running the affairs of a Co-operative Society, while exercising his power of making interlocutory orders under Sec. 71(3) of the Act. 7. For the reasons given above I am of opinion that the orders dated 26th of August 1972 passed by respondent No. 1 appointing Shri Jodhan Singh, S. R. I. as an Arbitrator to go into the dispute raised in the application moved by certain member of the Society, copy of which has been filed as Annexure - II to the counter-affidavit, as also the order dated 28th of August, 1972 passed by Respondent No. 2 appointing respondent No. 3 as the Administrator of the Society are without jurisdiction and are liable to be quashed. 8. In the result the petition is allowed with costs. The order dated 26th of August, 1972 passed by respondent No. 1 (Annexure II to the counter-affidavit) and that dated 26th August, 1972 passed by respondent No. 2 (Annexure A-l to the writ petition) are quashed.