JUDGMENT Jagmohan Lal, J. - The petitioner is a member of Sahkari Ganna Vikash Samiti Ltd., Bara Banki (to be hereinafter called as the Society) which is opposite party No. 2 to the writ petition. He is also a member of the Board of Directors of this Society. Opposite party No. 3 is the Secretary of the Society. Opposite party No. 4 is another Co-operative Society which is also a member of the said Society. Opposite party No. 1 is the Registrar, Cane Co-operative Societies and opposite party No. 5 is the State of U. P. 2. The Society was registered under the provisions of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 since repealed and reenacted by U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. The Society had its own bye-laws framed under the provisions of the old Act and those bye-laws were to continue in force under sub-section (1) of section 131 of the new Co-operative Societies Act (to be hereinafter called as the Act.) except in so far as the same were inconsistent with the express provisions of this Act. 3. The Registrar (Opposite Party No. 1) by means of his circular letter dated 6-4-1970 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) required the Society to amend its bye-laws and for the purpose a printed copy of the model bye-laws framed by the Registrar under rule 13 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Rules (to be hereinafter called as the Rules) was also enclosed which is annexure 3 to the writ petit ion. The Society was requried to amend and frame its bye-laws in consonance with the model bye-laws by 15-5-1970. According to the petitioner, a meeting of the general body of the Society was called on 15-5-1970 which adopted the model bye-laws subject to cent ain modifications made therein which it was competent to make under rule 14. These bye-laws were then sent to the Registrar for registration. The Registrar accepted some of the modifications made by the Society in the model bye-law but one modifications were not accepted by him. On the other hand, he himself made certain amendments to these model bye-laws including the addition of a new bye-law numbered as 43 (13). He then registered the bye-laws as not amended by him. 4. The Registrar accepted some of the modifications made by the Society in the model bye-law but one modifications were not accepted by him. On the other hand, he himself made certain amendments to these model bye-laws including the addition of a new bye-law numbered as 43 (13). He then registered the bye-laws as not amended by him. 4. The petitioner's grievance is that the Registrar was not competent to make these amendments in the bye-laws himself without first proposing the same to the Society and requiring it to make those bye-laws. If the Society failed to make the proposed bye-law then alone the Registrar could make them by complying with the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act which, enjoined on him to give an opportunity to the Society concerened of being heard and to obtain prior approval of the State Government before registering the amendments so made by him. Further he was not competent to refuse to register the amendments as proposed by the Society in its meeting held on 15-5-1970, under section 12 (3). It was contended by the petitioner that the bye-law No. 43 (13) as framed by the Registrar was not valid and it would defeat the purpose of this Society. This bye-law was also discriminatory because it was imposed on this Society while in the case of another Society of the same class such a bye law was not imposed and the model bye-laws as originally framed were registered with respect to that Society. 5. The writ petition was contested on behalf of the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 5. A Counter-affidavit was filed by a senior Assistant of Cane Commissioner's Office, Lucknow. It was alleged that it was the dey of the Society to amend and alter its bye-laws within one year from the date of coming into force of the Act so as to bring them inconformity with the provisions of the Act and the Rules as required by section 131 (3). The Society, however, failed to do so, and thereafter it was required by the Registrar to amend the rales on the lines contained in the model bye-laws. When the Society failed to comply with this requirement, the Registrar himself made those amendments. The Society, however, failed to do so, and thereafter it was required by the Registrar to amend the rales on the lines contained in the model bye-laws. When the Society failed to comply with this requirement, the Registrar himself made those amendments. All those amendments including bye-law No. 43 (13) were necessary to make the bye-laws of the Society consistent with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. It was also alleged that though bye-law No. 43(13) was not originally incorporated in the printed copy of the model bye-laws it was subsequently added through a separate circular and thus made a part of the model bye laws. A copy of that circular was issued to the Society concerned also. This fact, is, however, denied by the petitioner in his rejoinder-affidavit. 6. I heard the learned counsel for the parties. The first point that arises for our consideration is under what provision of the Act or the Rules the Registrar made the impugned amendments in the bye-laws of the Society. On behalf of the opposite parties it has been contended that the Act itself had cast a duty on the Society to delete or amend such of its bye-laws as were inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and the Rules and to make such further bye-laws as may be necessary having regard to the provisions of the Act and the Rules, within one year from the enforcement of the Act as laid down in sub-section (3) of Section 131. It was therefore argued that on the failure of the Society to do so, the Registrar was competent to make necessary amendments including dele: ions and additions to the bye-laws of the Society under section 131 (4) and for doing so it was not necessary that the Society should have been given any opportunity of being heard before it was done by the Registrar. This argument presumes that the existing bye-laws of the Society were inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and the Rules and the entire set of model bye-laws framed by the Registrar as further modified by him including the subsequent addition of bye-law No. 43(13) was necessary to remove the inconsistency and thereby make, the bye-laws conform with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. In my opinion what has been done in this case by the Registrar Is beyond his powers under Section 131 (4). It has not been shown in what manner the existing bye-laws of the Society were inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and how it was necessary to replace all those bye-laws by a new set of bye-laws incorporated in the model bye-laws as subsequently amended by him. 7. It is correct that if the case is covered by Section 131 (4) it is not necessary for the Registrar to give any notice, or an opportunity of being heard, to the defaulting society. This sub-section in its terms in not controlled or supplemented by any provisions of the Rules. The only requirement for the application of this provision is that there must be some inconsistencies in the bye-laws of the society and the provisions of the Act and the Rules, and the society has failed to remove them by amending the bye-laws in that respect within one year from the date of the coming into force of the Act. The action that can be taken by the Registrar under this provision is strictly confined to amending the bye-laws including the deletion or addition, of some of the provisions thereof in order to remove the inconsistencies between the byelaw's and the provisions of the Act and the Rules. It is not permissible under this provision to replace the entire set of bye-laws of a society by another set of bye-laws which the Registrar thinks to be suitable or desirable in the interest of such society or in public interest. For that purpose he has to take recourse to section 14; which provides : 14. (1) Where the Registrar is of the opinion, whether on the representation of a member of a Co-operative society, or otherwise, that an amendment in the bye-laws of a co-operative society is necessary or desirable in the interests of such society or in public interest, he may, under such circumstances as may be prescribed, by order in writing issued to the society by registered post, require the society to make the amendment within such time as he may specify in the order. (2) If the society fails to make the amendment within the time specified, the Registrar may, after giving the society an opportunity of being heard, and with prior approval of the State Government, register such amendment and issue to the society by registered post a copy of the amendment certified by him as a copy and such copy shall be conclusive evidence that the amendment has been duly made and registered." Even for the purpose of removing inconsistency it is open to the Registrar, instead of taking action under section 131 (4), to take action under sub-section (1) of section 14 read with clauses (c) and (d) of rule 30 of the Rules. 8. Rule 13 empowers the Registrar to frame model bye-laws for each class of society or societies. The model bye-laws which were sent to the Society in this case were framed by the Registrar under this rule. The Society in its general meeting adopted these bye-laws -with certain modifications. The case of the petitioner is that it was permissible for the Society to adopt these model bye-laws with such modifications as it may consider necessary having regard to its requirements, under Rule 14. The Registrar, however, did not agree with all the modifications made by the Society in these bye-laws. At that stage two courses were open to the Registrar. If the modifications made by the Society which were not acceptable to the Registrar altered the basic nature of those bye-laws, he could treat it as a refusal of the Society to pass the model bye-laws as suggested by him under sub-section (1) of Sec ion 14 and thereafter he could take action under sub-section (2) of the said section after complying with its requirements, namely, giving an opportunity to the society of being heard and obtaining the prior approval of the State Government before registering these model bye-laws. Obviously these essential requirements had not been fulfilled by the Registrar in this case and so his action cannot be justified under this provision. Obviously these essential requirements had not been fulfilled by the Registrar in this case and so his action cannot be justified under this provision. On behalf of the petitioner it has been contended that on the facts of the present case it was not even permissible to the Registrar, to take action under Section 11(2) because the society cannot be said to have failed to pass the model bye-laws within the time allowed by the Registrar and the modifications made to these bye-laws by the society were permissible under rule 14. It is not necessary for me to go into the details of the modifications made by the Society to the model bye-laws to see if they were within the scope of Rule 14. 9. Another course open to him was to treat the modifications suggested by the society as a fresh proposal for amending the bye-laws under Section 12. In that case, he could, after giving the society an opportunity of being heard as required by sub-rule (2) of Rule 28, refuse to register the proposed amendments and communicate the order of refusal together with the reasons therefor to the society as required by sub-section (3) of Section 12. In that case the old bye-laws of the society would stand. That too was not done in this case. 10. A third and better course open to the Registrar was to accept such of the modifications made by the society in the model bye-laws as were permissible within the scope of Rule 14 and reject others and thereafter to send a modified copy of the model bye-laws to the society for passing them as they were within the time fixed by him. If the society had failed to do so this time, action could, of cause, be taken against the society under sub-section (2) of Sec ion 14 after complying with its requirements. This course was also not adopted by the Registrar. 11. What the Registrar has done in this case is to modify the model bye-lays according to his own light after incorporating therein a fresh bye-law numbered as 43(13) which, according to the petitioner, the Registrar was not competent to do and which materially prejudiced the petitioner. This course was also not adopted by the Registrar. 11. What the Registrar has done in this case is to modify the model bye-lays according to his own light after incorporating therein a fresh bye-law numbered as 43(13) which, according to the petitioner, the Registrar was not competent to do and which materially prejudiced the petitioner. This bye-law lays down that a person who is in the service of the State Government, a local body, an educational institution or any other corporate body, shall not be qualified to be elected or nominated as a delegate of a Co-operative society but this disqualification shall not attach to the delegates of the State of the Central Government or of sugar mills. 12. It has not been alleged that if this bye-law is not incorporated in the bye-laws of the society, the bye-laws would in any way be inconsistent with the provisions of the Act or the Rules within the meaning of Section 131 (3). All that has been said in para 8 of the counter-affidavit is that this bye-law was found necessary in the interest of the proper working of the society. It has been stated by the petitioner in his rejoinder-affidavit that the model bye-laws adopted by another Co-operative society of the same class which did not contain in it the provision of bye-law No. 43(13), had been registered by the Registrar without any objection, and this fact shows that this bye-law is not actually necessary for the proper functioning of a society of this class. In any case, if the Registrar wanted that this society should have this particular provision in its bye-laws he caught to have taken necessary action under Section 14 which he has not done in this case. The petitioner definitely alleged that the proposal to amend the bye-laws in a way as to incorporate this provision was never communicated to this society and the copy of the model bye-laws sent to the petitioner's society vide annexure 3 did not contain this bye-law No. 43(13) in it. On behalf of the contesting opposite party it was alleged that this bye-law was circulated to the societies concerned under a separate circular which fact is also denied by the petitioner. On behalf of the contesting opposite party it was alleged that this bye-law was circulated to the societies concerned under a separate circular which fact is also denied by the petitioner. The contesting opposite party did not place any material to show when and in what manner this separate circular containing bye-law No. 43 (13) was served on the petitioner's society. If such a bye-law was not sent to the petitioner's society as required by sub-section (1) of Section 14, there was no occasion for the Registrar to take any action in respect of this bye-law under sub-section. (2) of the said section. But assuming for arguments sake that this bye-law was sent by the Registrar to the petitioner's society and that the society had refused to adopt this bye-law the Registrar could take action under sub- section (2) only after complying with its requirements. As stated above, this was not done by the Registrar. As such, the registration of this bye law is also invalid. 13. As a result of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the Registrar, Cane Co-operative Societies (opposite party No. 1) registering the new bye-laws of the Society (opposite party No. 1 shall, however, be at liberty to require the society concerned to amend its bye-laws according to the provisions of the Act. The petitioner shall get his costs from the contesting opposite party.