Judgment B. P. Jha, J. 1. I dispose of CWLC Nos 2386, 2389 and 2390 all of 1976 by a common judgment as the points a law arising for consideration are common in all these writ petitions. In these writ petitions the Purnea District Central coopertive Bank Ltd. , Purnea (respondent no.5 in each of the writ petitions) lodged a complaint in respect of the dispute between the Purnea District Central cooperative Bank Ltd. , Purnea and the various Multipurpose Co operative Societies ltd. Petitioner in C. W J C. Nos 2386 and 3389 of 1976 are the Secretaries of multi-purp se Co-operative Societies Ltd, Dumaria and Bhagals ihnagara In c. WJ. C. No.2390 of 1976 the ex-President of Wohita Multi-purpose cooperative Society is the petitioner. The Purnea District Central Cooperative bank Ltd. complained to the Assistant Registrar, Co operative Societies, kishanganj under section 41 of the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act 1935 (Bihar and Orissa Act VI of 1935), (hereinafer referred to as the Act ). The case of the Purnea District Co operative Bank Ltd. , Purnca is that it advanced certain loans to those Co operative Souetios, and these Co-operative societies have not paid back the loans advanced by the Purnea District co-operative Bank Ltd. Hence, this dispute was referred to the Assistant registrar, Co-operative Societies, Kishanganj under section 48 of the Act. 2. By virtue of Anuexure-1 (in all the writ applications), the Assistant registrar, Co-operative Societies, Kishanganj directed the ex-Secretary, ex-President and Treasurer of the Co-operative Societies to pay back the loan to the Purnea District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. 3. Against the order contained in Annexure 1, the petitioners in all these three writ applications preferred appeals under section 48 (6) of the Act to the Deputy registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bhagalpur. By virtue of three different orders contained in Annexure 2 the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bhagalpur remanded the three appeals to the Assistant Registrar, Kishanganj for fresh consideration. The learned Deputy Registar also further directed that the proceeding may be initiated against the persons who had taken the loan from the multi-purpose Co-operative Societies. 4. Against the order contained in Annexure 2, the Purnea District Central co-operative Bank Ltd. preferred a second appeal before the Joint Registrar, co-operative Societies, Kosi Division, Sahara. The learned Deputy Registar also further directed that the proceeding may be initiated against the persons who had taken the loan from the multi-purpose Co-operative Societies. 4. Against the order contained in Annexure 2, the Purnea District Central co-operative Bank Ltd. preferred a second appeal before the Joint Registrar, co-operative Societies, Kosi Division, Sahara. The joint Registrar, Co-operative societies by virtue of Annexure 5 called for the records of the case from the deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies and also stayed the operation of the order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies as contained in annexure 2. It is this order (Annexure 5) which has been challenged before this court. The substance of the order as contained in annexure 5 in all these three writ applications is the same. 5. The point for consideration is ; whether a second appeal lies against an order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies under section 48 (6)of the Act? 6. In my opinion, the answer must be given in negative. There is no provision in the Act to prefer a second appeal against an appellate order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies under section 48 (6) of the Act. If it is so, the order contained in Annexure 5 is ab initio void. The Act provides only one appeal against an order passed by the Assistant Registrar uader section 48 (2) of the Act. There is no provision in the Act which provides that an appeal shall lie against an order passed by an appellate authority under section 48 (6) of the Act. There is a provision for revision under section 56 of the Act which provides that Registrar may revise any order passed by persons exercising the powers of the Registrar or Liquidator under section 44 of the Act on an application filed by the aggrieved party. In the present case, the Purnea District central Co-operative Bank Ltd. preferred a second appeal before the joint registrar, Co-operative Societies, which in my opinion, is not maintainable in law. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents contends that no appeal is maintainable against an order passed by the Assistant Registrar under section 48 (2) (a) of the Act. I am unable to accept his argument. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents contends that no appeal is maintainable against an order passed by the Assistant Registrar under section 48 (2) (a) of the Act. I am unable to accept his argument. It is relevant to quote section 48 (2) of the Act which runs as follows :- "48 (2) The Registrar may on receipt of reference- (a) decide the dispute himself, or (b) transfer it for disposal to any person exercising, the powers of a registrar in this behalf, or (c) subject to any rules, refer it for disposal to an arbitrator or arbitrators". The Registrar may decide the dispute himself under section 48 (2) (a) of the Act. If he decides the dispute under section 48 (2) (a), then no appeal lies. The provision of the appeal is mentioned under section 48 (6) of the Act which runs as follows :- "48 (6) Any person aggrieved by any decision given in a dispute transferred or referred under clause (b) or (c) of sub-section (2) may, within three months from the date of such decision, appeal to the registrar. " The appeal will lie against any order passed under section 48 (2) (b) (c) of the Act. It is clear that no appeal will lie against an order passed by the" Registrar if he decides the dispute himself under section 48 (2) (a ). In the present case it is conceded by the counsel of die appellants that the dispute has not been decided by the registrar. The dispute in the present case has been decided by the Assistant registrar. Hence, his decision will come within the purview of section 48 (2) (b ). It will be presumed in law that the Registrar transferred the dispute to the assistant Registrar for the purpose of the decision. If it is so, the Assistant registrar decided the present case under section 48 (2) (b) and not under section 42 (2) (a) of the Act. The scheme of the Act is that it the Registrar decides the dispute himself, then no appeal lies. On a perusal of section 56 of the Act, it is clear that the Registrar will exercise the revisional jurisdiction against any order passed by the Subordinate authority. The scheme of the Act is that it the Registrar decides the dispute himself, then no appeal lies. On a perusal of section 56 of the Act, it is clear that the Registrar will exercise the revisional jurisdiction against any order passed by the Subordinate authority. It is for this reason no appeal will lie if the Registrar himself decides the dispute, whereas in the present case the dispute has been decided by the Assistant Registrar who is subordinate to the registrar. 8 Learned, counsel for the respondents contends that on the date on which the Appeal was preferred the Deputy Registrar was not the Deputy Registrar under the Act I shall not allow him to raise this point at this stage as he did not raise this point before the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies at the time of hearing of the appeal, earned counsel for the respondents also contends that at the relevant time the 1 )eputy Registrar had no territorial jurisdiction for hearing these three appeals 1 also do not allow the respondents to raise this point as the point of jurisdiction had to be raised at the earliest stage, specially when it involved investigation on the question of fact. It is also conceded by the learned counsel for the respondents that this point also was not raised at the time of hearing of ths appeal before the Deputy Registrar. Hence, I reject this argument also. 9. In the result, these writ applications are allowed and the orders contained in Annexure 5 in all the three writ applications are quashed. The parties will bear their own costs. S. K. Jha, J.- 1 respectfully agree with the judgment of my learned brother. I, however, wish to add a few observations of my own 10. The points, involved in these writ applications to my mind, plain and simple. As my learned brother has already noticed, a dispute was raised which would be deemed to have been transferred to the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative societies, who passed the orders in those cases as contained in Annexure 1 to each of these applications There was an appeal under section 48 (6) of the Act which was heard and disposed of by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative societies. There was a further appeal by the respondents to the joint Registrar of co-operative Societies, who has entertained the appeals and has passed order in spite of objection having been raised with regard to his jurisdiction to maintain those second appeals. It is the admitted case of the parties that the Act does not provide any second appellate forum. It is well-settled that the right of appeal is not a mere matter of procedure, but is a substantive right. There is no inherent right of appeal It must be a creature of statute. No second appeal can be entertained if under any apecial enactment there is provision for one appeal only. Not to multiply the decisions I may merely make a passing reference to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gopikapati Veeraya V/s. N. Subbiah Choudhry, ( AIR 1957 SC 540 ) and a Full Bench decision of this court in case of Kedar Nath v. Banwari Rai (Indian Law Reports 23 Patna 427 ). Therefore, the joint registrar has absolutely no jurisdition to entertain the second appeal on behalf of the contesting respondents. The order of stay; albeit an order of interlocutory nature, shall not be permitted to stand, if the quasi-Judicial authority bad no jurisdiction to entertain the appeals themselves. 11. The other question which was rather enthusiatically sought to be pressed upon us by the learned counsel for the respondents was with regard to the jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar to entertain an appeal against the order of the Assistant Registrar. His submissions were two-fold ; firstly, that the order passed by the Assistant Registrar was purported to be one under the provisions of section 48 (2) (a) and, therefore, not appdiable and the other string to the bow added by the learned counsel for the respondents was that the Deputy Registrar had no jurisdiction to entertain the first appeal since on the date on which he passed the appellate order he had no territorial jurisdiction to exercise the powers of the registrar within the area in which these cases fell for consideration. The submissions in my view are fallacious. The term registrar has been defined in section 2 (1) of the Act. It means a person appointed to perform the duties of a registrar of Co-operative Societies under this Act. The submissions in my view are fallacious. The term registrar has been defined in section 2 (1) of the Act. It means a person appointed to perform the duties of a registrar of Co-operative Societies under this Act. Sec.6 (1) of the Act empowers the State Government to appoint a person to be Registrar of Co-operative societies for the State or any portion of it and further authorises the State government to appoint persons to assist such Registrar. Sec.6 (2) further empowers the State Government to confer either by general or special order published in the official Gazette on any person appinted under section 6 (1) to assist the Registrar or to exercise any of the powers of the Registrar under the act except the powers under section 26. It will thus be seen that a person appointed by the State Government to be the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for the State is the Registrar in the true sense of the term. Any other person appointed to assist the Registrar and vested with or any of the powers of the registrar are merely exercising the powers of the Registrar. It is in this context that the provisions of section 48 for the purposes of the instant cases have to be judged. As my learned brother has very lucidly and suscintably put it, section 48 (2) lays down that whenever a dispute is raised touching the business of a registered society, the Registrar may on receipt of such a reference decide the dispute himself or tranfser it for disposal to any person exercising the powers of a Registrar in this behalf. It needs no argument to notice that clause (a) of subsection (2) of section 48 speaks of the Registrar deciding the dispute himself. That essentially is a question of fact as to whether a particular dispute has been decided by the Registrar or not. It is nobodys case here that the dispute in the instant cases was decided by the Registrar himself. It goes without saying, therefore, that the dispute has been decided by the Assistant Registrar exercising the powers of a Registrar in this behalf. He must evidently be deemed to have received such a dispute for disposal on transfer. It is nobodys case here that the dispute in the instant cases was decided by the Registrar himself. It goes without saying, therefore, that the dispute has been decided by the Assistant Registrar exercising the powers of a Registrar in this behalf. He must evidently be deemed to have received such a dispute for disposal on transfer. For aught we know, since this question was never canvassed at any lower forum, the Registrar may have by positive order transferred these disputes for disposal to the Assistant Registrar. Be that as it may, the orders as contained in Annexure 1 to each of the writ applications cannot but be said to be decided by a person assisting the Registrar within the meaning of section 6 (i) of the Act exercising the powers of Registrar within the meaning of section 6 (2) (a) of the Act. 12. So far as the second limb of the submission is concerned, suffice it to say and I say so with respect that my learned brother has rightly held that since the question with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the Deputy registrar is a matter which in its very nature is bound to embrace questions of fact which had not been raised before any of the authorities below, this point cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time at the hearing of these writ applications. 13. Incidentally Mr. Bose, the learned counsel for the respondent also contended that the order passed by the Assistant Registrar was not appealable to the Deputy Registrar at all the only appeal that is envisagid under sub-section (6) of section 48 from the order of the Assistant Registrar which could lie at the instance of a party affected adversely is before the Registrar only. I do not think there is any substance in this point either. It cannot be said that sub-section (6)of section 48 while speaking of the appeal to the Registrar against the decision under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 48 inevitably must mean the Registrar himself.1, however, refrain from giving any concluded opinion on this point for the special reason that this point was never raised before the deputy Registrar by the contesting respondents. The Deputy Registrar may have been duly authorised to entertain appeals. The Deputy Registrar may have been duly authorised to entertain appeals. I, therefore, entirely agree that these applications be allowed and Anncxure 5 of each of these applications be quashed. Applications allowed.