JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Petition No. 150 of 1971 (Bhoorakhan v. The Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Indore and others ). This petition by the Society is directed against an order of the Assistant registrar, Cooperative Societies. Indore, dated the 10th June, 1966, for its supersession under section 53 of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies act, 1960 (17 of 1961), which has been affirmed in appeal by both, the Joint registrar and the State Government. The connected petition is by a member of the superseded society against the order of the Assistant Registrar dated 11th August, 1971, for its liquidation under section 69 of the Act. ( 2. ) THE most crucial question that arises in these petitions is, whether the Assistant Registrar was or was not competent to exercise the powers of supersession of the Registrar under section 53 of the Act. That depends on a construction of section 3 (2) of the Act which provides for delegation of powers of the Registrar. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the petitioner society being a primary farming society, the power of supersession in relation thereto, would be exercised either by the Registrar or the deputy Registrar, and not by the Assistant Registrar. He urges that the supersession being illegal, no officer-in-charge could be validly appointed. He also urges that the officer-in-charge had no statutory authority to represent the society; and therefore, the report that he made for its liquidation could not be acted upon by the Assistant Registiar. There is no merit in the contention. ( 3. ) SECTION 3 (2) of the Act reads as follows : "3 (2) The officers appointed to assit the Registrar shall, within such areas as the state Government may specify, exercise such powers and perform such duties conferred and imposed on the Registrar by or under this Act as the State Government may, by special or general order, direct;" The Assistant Registrar is an officer appointed by the State Government to assist the Registrar. Under section 3 (2) of the Act, he exercises such powers and performs such duties conferred and imposed on the Registrar by or under the Act, as the State Government may, by special or general order, so direct. Under section 3 (2) of the Act, he exercises such powers and performs such duties conferred and imposed on the Registrar by or under the Act, as the State Government may, by special or general order, so direct. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 (2) of the Act the State government have issued Notification No. 2421-7060 XV-62 dated the 16th june, 1962, and Notification No. 6072-5118-XV-63 dated the 31st July, 1964, for the conferral of powers. The relevant portion of the earlier Notification may be extracted : -"notification No. 2421-7060-XV-62. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2)of section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (17 of 1961) and in supersession of this Department Notification No. 2084-XV-59, dated the 13th January, 1959, in so far as it relates to conferring of powers of the Registrar under the various sections of the enactments relating to Co-operative Societies for the time being in force, the State government hereby directs that the powers conferred on the Registrar by sections of the said act as specified in Column (2) of the Table below shall be exercise by Deputy Registrars and Assistant Registrars of Co-operative Societies to the extent specified in corresponding entries in columns (3) and (4) of the said Table within the areas of their respective jurisdiction. ( 4. ) IF the matter stood at that there can be no doubt that the power of supersession under section 53 of the Act could be exercised either by the Registrar or the Deputy Registrar in respect of Primary Farming Co-operative Societies. But the State Government by subsequent notification conferred on the Assistant Registrar all the powers of the Registar under sections 7 (1), 8 and 9 of the Act read with rule 9 of the Rules, i. e. , in respect of the registration of such societies. ( 5. But the State Government by subsequent notification conferred on the Assistant Registrar all the powers of the Registar under sections 7 (1), 8 and 9 of the Act read with rule 9 of the Rules, i. e. , in respect of the registration of such societies. ( 5. ) SINCE the controversy between the parties turns on the construction of the subsequent notification, we think it better to reproduce it: "notification No. 6072-5118- XV-63-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (No. 17 of 1961) and in partial modification of this Department Orders No. 242i-7060-XV-62, dated the 16th June, 1962 and No. 5139-4985-XV-62, dated the 18th October, 1962, the State government hereby directs that the powers conferred on the Registrar by the sections of the said Act and the rules framed thereunder as specified in column (2) of the Table below shall also be exercised by Assistant Registrars of Co-operative Societies to the extent specified in corresponding entries in column (3) of the said Table within the areas of their respective jurisdiction. On a plain construction of the aforesaid notification it is clear that it was in partial modification of the earlier notification; in other words, both the notifications have to be read together. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not right in contending that the earlier notification stands by itself and is not in any manner controlled by the subsequent notification. Such an interpretation would be against all canons of construction. Learned counsel also invited our attention of Notification No. 1176-15173-XV-68, dated the 18th February 1969 which is to the following effect: "in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Madhya pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (No. 17 of 1961) and in partial modification of this Department Order No. 2421-7060-XV-62 dated the 16th June 1962, the State Government hereby directs that the powers conferred on the Registrar by sub-section (1) of section 6, shall also be exercised by the Assistant Registrars within the areas of their respective jurisdictions so far as "primary Farming Societies" are concerned; and for that purpose makes the following amendment in the said Order, namely: amendment in the said order in column (4 of the Table, after entry (e), the following entry shall be added, namely:-" (f) Primary Farming Societies". . . " ( 6. . . " ( 6. ) LEARNED counsel urges that only after the issue of this notification, the assistant Registrars were empowered to exercise the functions and duties of the Registrar under section 53 of the Act in respect of Primary Farming societies. That construction of his can hardly be accepted. A plain reading of the notification shows that it was intended to confer additional powers on the Assistant Registrars, i. e. the powers of the Registrar under section 6 (1) of the Act. That notification does not throw any light on the construction of the earlier two notifications. ( 7. ) THE other contention of learned counsel that the only manner in which there could be conferral on the Assistant Registrars of the powers of the registrar under section 53 of the Act, was to amend the first notification, i. e. Notification No. 2421-7060 XV-62 dated the 16th June, 1962, by the addition of a new clause (f) in column (4) of serial No. 1, relating to Primary Farming societies, can hardly be accepted. When there are two ways of doing a thing, the thing may be done in either way. While it is true that the State Government could have added a new clause (f) in serial No. 1, column (4) of the earlier notification perhaps they felt that that was not necessary. That was because of the language of Serial No. 14, which speaks of "all powers of the Registrar in respect of the societies which he can register". All that, therefore, remained was the actual conferral of the power of registration of Primary Farming Societies on the Assistant Registrars. That was clearly achieved by the subsequent notification. ( 8. ) IN this view of the matter, it is conceded by learned counsel for the petitioner that no other question arises. ( 9. ) BOTH the petitions are, therefore, devoid of merit and must be dismissed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 100/- (one hundred) in each case. The petitioners are allowed to withdraw the balance, if any, of the security deposit after verification. Petition dismissed.