( 1 ) A Co-operative Society called ' The Writers and Artists ' House Building co-operative Society Ltd. , Bangalore-4 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Society'), registered and functioning under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act of 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ' the 1959 Act') represented by one Shri T. C. Venkataswamy who is stated to be its Secretary, is the petitioner before me. In this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged, (1) an order bearing No. EST/trn/31/76-77 dated 24-8-1976 (Ext. G) and (2) an another order bearing No EST-TRN/106/78-79 dated 21-8-1978 (Ext. J) passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, bangalore Dn. (hereinafter referred to as ' the Joint Registrar ' ). under the provisions of the 1959 Act. In the first order, the Joint Registrar purports to rectify an earlier order of the same number dated 31-7-1976 (Ext. B) and directs that the posting of respondent No. 2 as Manager of the Society should be read as the Secretary of the Society. In the second order, tha Joint Registrar transfers and posts respondent No. 2 to the office of the Deputy Registrar of co-operative Societies, Bangalore City, but directs him to be in additional charge of the post of the Secretary of the Society. ( 2 ) IN order to streamline the work of the Society, the petitioner on 2-7-1976 (Ext. A) requested the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, bangalore Dt. to lend the services of one of the Officials of the Co-operative department as Manager of the Society for a period of one year. Accepting the request of the petitioner, the Joint Registrar by his order No. EST-TRN/s1/ 76-77 dated 31-7-76 (Ext. B) spared the services of respondent No. 2 and posted him as the Manager of the Society. On 24-8-76, the Joint Registrar issued an Erratum purporting to rectify the posting of respondent No. 2 as the secretary of the Society, On 25-8-1976, the Government appointed a Special officer to the Society under S. 30a (l)of the 195.) Act who assumed charge as provided by sub-section (2) of the same section, the validity of which was challenged before this Court in WP No. 7848 of 76. On 21 4-78 this court quashed the appointment of the Special Officer made by the Government under S. 30a (1) of the 5 Act as a consequence of which the Committee of management of the Society became entitled to manage the affairs of the Society. The case of the petitioner is that it has terminated the services of respondent no. 2 on 12-6-78 and has appointed Shri T. C. Venkataswamy who is now representing the Society as the Secretary of the Society on 17-6-78. As there were serious doubts in the matter of delivery of records of the Society, the petitioner presented this writ petition on 25-8-78 challenging the first order of the Joint Registrar with an interim prayer to restrain respondent No. 2 from claiming himself as the Secretary of the Society with a further direction to him to hand over the records. On 29-8-78 Rama Jois J, while issuing rule nisi also granted the interim prayer sought by the petitioner. The interim order issued by this Court reads thus :-" Pending disposal of the aforesaid writ petition, it is ordered by this court on 29-8-78 (by Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. Rama Jois) that the 2nd respondent is hereby restrained from claiming himself as the Secretary of the Society and functioning as such and representing the Society as its secretary in its affairs and the 2nd respondentis hereby directed to hand over the records of the Society to the petitioner. "on 8-9-78 respondent No. 2 appeared through counsel and filed a statement of objections inter alia contending that he has been placed in additional charge of the duties of the Secretary On an application made, 1 have permitted the petitioner to challenge the order dated 21-8-78 (Ext. J)' ( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner is that the power to appoint a Secretary who can only be a whole-time salaried officer of a Society, exclusively vests with the Committee of Management of the Society and the Joint Registrar has no power to appoint a Secretary, much less place an officer of the Department to be in additional charge of the post of the Secretary of a Society. ( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY the order dated 31-7-76 to which an erratum has been issued' on -24-8-76 (Ext. ( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY the order dated 31-7-76 to which an erratum has been issued' on -24-8-76 (Ext. G) has spent itself and is no longer in force and therefore it is unnecessary for me to adjudicate on the validity of the order dated 24-8 "6 and pronounce on it. Learned counsel for the parties are also agreed on the same. I therefore decline to quash the order dated 2'1-8 76. ( 5 ) THE order dated 21-8-78, which survives for consideration reads thus :-" Office of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bangalore Division, bangalore-18, dated 21-H-78. No. EST-TRN/106/-V1. Sub -.-Transfer and posting of Senior Inspector of C. S. Regarding. ORDER shri Venkatappa, Senior Inspector of C. S. OOD Secretary, Writers and artists House, Building Co-op : Society Ltd. , Bangalore, is transferred and posted as Senior Inspector of C. S. , attached to Deputy Registrar of C. S. Bangalore (City) vice Sri H. Ganganna, already transferred. 2. Further, Sri Venkatappa, Senior Inspector of C. S. is placed in additional charge of the post of Secretary, Writers and Artists House Building Co. op- erative Society Ltd. , Bangalore, in addition to his regular duties, until further orders. Sd. K. P. Jagannatha Rao, Joint Registrar of C. S. Bangalore Division "the petitioner does not challenge the first para of the order by which respondent no. 2 has been transferred and posted as Senior Inspector to the Office of the deputy Registrar of Co operative Societies, B'lore. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot challenge the first para of the order, In the second para of the order with which the petitioner is concerned, the Joint Registrar has placed respondent No 2 to be in additional charge of the post of the Secretary of the Society. The case of respondent No. 2 is that on a request made by the President of the Society, the joint Registrar has placed him in additional charge to avoid departmental audit objections. It is his case that S. III A of the l959 Act has no application to his appointment and that in truth and reality he is functioning as the Secretary of the society. At the hearing of the case, Shri B. Thilak Hegdc. It is his case that S. III A of the l959 Act has no application to his appointment and that in truth and reality he is functioning as the Secretary of the society. At the hearing of the case, Shri B. Thilak Hegdc. learned counsel for respondent No. 2 even maintained that on the facts and circumstances of the case notwithstanding the-wordings used in the order, respondent No. 2 was a wholetime salaried officer and Secretary of the Society. ( 6 ) SHRI T. S. Ramachandra, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the power of appointment of Secretary who is required to be a whole time officer of the Society vests with the Management of the Society and cannot be exercised by the Joint Registrar or any other officer of the Department: much less was it open to place respondent No. 2 to be in additional charge of the post of the Secretary of the Society. Shri Thilak Hegde refuted the contentioa of Shri Ramachandra and urged that S. 111a of the 1959 Act has no application to the order made by the Joint Registrar-and in any event the Joint Registrar was justified in placing respondent No. 2 in additional charge of the post of the Secretary of the society. Shri Thilak Hegde urged that Shri T. C. Venkataswamy has no right to sue and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and is therefore liable to be dismissed in limine. I first propose to examine the second contention of Shri Thilak Hegde. ( 7 ) EARLIER I have noticed that the petitioner has averred that Shri T. C. Venkataswamy has been appointed as the Secretary on 17-6-1978 (Ext. H ). In the application to raise additional grounds, a copy of the proceeding dt. 2-7-1978 of the Executive Committee of the Society authorising Shri T. C. Venkataswamy to file and defend suits, writ petitions and other legal proceedings before Courts, tribunals, Revenue Offices has also been produced (Ext. K ). In this writ petition i am not concerned with the internal working of the Society or the group alignments among the members of the Committee of Management of the Society which is pleaded as a factor by respondent No. 2 to contend that Shri T. C. Venkataswamy is not the Scecretary of the Society and he has not been authorised to file the writ petition. S. 111a of the 1959 Act confers the power of appointment of a Secretary on the society itself. That power is not subject to any ratification or approval by any other authority. When the Society avers that it has appointed Shri T. C. Venkataswamy as its Secretary and has authorised him to file or defend all legal proceedings, norrr. ally I should accept the same and examine the merits of the controversies. In any event it is not open to respondent No. 2 to challenge the validity of the appointment of Shri T. C. Venkataswamy or the authority conferred on him by the Society in this writ petition. I therefore do not propose to go into the question of the validity of the appointment of Shri T. C. Venkataswamy or the authority conferred on him. But i will also assume for the purpose of examining the contention of respondent No. 2 only that Shri T. C. Venkataswamy has not been appointed and has not been authorised and that he continues to be the ' ecretary of the Society as contended by him and examine whether the writ petition is liable to be thrown out in limine as contended by him. ( 8 ) S. 9 of the K 59 Act declares a Cooperative Society registered under the act to be a body corporate and authorises it to hold property, enter into contracts, institute and defend suits, and other legal proceedings and do all things necessary for purposes for which it is constituted. Shri Thilak I egde does not dispute that the Society has filed this writ petition. S. 9 or any other rule framed under the 1959 Act in terms docs not say as in some enactments that the Society which is a body corporate should be represented by a designated person or authority, officer or person holding any post in that body corporate. So long as the registered society which is a body corporate has presented a writ petition which necessarily has to be done by some human agency, a Court has necessarily to examine its grievance and decide that grievance. A society registered under the 19 59 Act is B ' corporation aggregate ' and is not a ' corporation sole '. In Halsbury's Laws of england, 4th Edn. , Vol. 9, the capacity of a corporation aggregate to sue is explained thus:" 1381. A society registered under the 19 59 Act is B ' corporation aggregate ' and is not a ' corporation sole '. In Halsbury's Laws of england, 4th Edn. , Vol. 9, the capacity of a corporation aggregate to sue is explained thus:" 1381. Capacity to s e :-Any Corporation may institute legal proceedings. A corporation sole must sue in respect of matters pertaining to the corporation in his corporate capacity, or at least show clearly that he sues in his corporate capacity. A corporation aggregate must sue in its corporate name, unless it is specially authorised by statute to sue in some other name, as, for instance, the name of one of its officers. "in Educational Society, Tirunelveli v. Madurai University (1) relied on by Shri ramachandra, a society called ' The Educational Society, Tirunelveli,' represented by its Treasurer, registered under the Societies Regisitration Act (XXI of 1860), filed a writ petition challenging certain action of the University. An objection was raised by the respondents that the writ petition presented by the Treasurer and not by the President was not maintainable. In repelling the contention Ismail, J. held thus : " After all, the Society, after registration, becomes a corporate entity and that corporate entity can certainly take steps in its own right and for that purpose, by whom it is represented is a matter that may be competently decided by the governing body. " in my opinion, the principle enunciated by Ismail J, is equally applicable to a case of a Society registered under the 1959 Act. As observed by Ismail J, the question as to who should be authorised to institute legal proceedings is a matter entirely for the Society to decide and it is not open to others to challenge the same. I am therefore of the opinion that the writ petition presented by the petitioner is maintainable and its grievance therefore requires to be examined by this Court. ( 9 ) SHRI Ramachandra's contention on merits rests on the true scope and ambit of S. 111a of the 195) Act for which purpose it is useful to read the same. That section reads thus :" S. 111a. Secretary:- (1) Every co-operative society shall have a sec. ( 9 ) SHRI Ramachandra's contention on merits rests on the true scope and ambit of S. 111a of the 195) Act for which purpose it is useful to read the same. That section reads thus :" S. 111a. Secretary:- (1) Every co-operative society shall have a sec. retary who shall be a whole time salaried officer of the co-operative society- subject to the provisions of the regulations made under S. 128a, the Secretary shall be appointed and be removable by the co-operative society. (2) The Secretary shall be the custodian of all records of a co-operative society and shall be responsible for the correct maintenance of the accounts of the co-operative society. He shall e ercise such powers and perform such other duties as may be prescribed. "s. 111a requires every Society to have a Secretary. It is not open to any Society to say that it will not have a Secretary. It has no option in the matter. The second requirement of the same section is that the Secretary must be a whole time salaried officer of the Society. The whole time salarised officer must necessarily devote all his attention and energy to the affairs of the Fociety. He cannot devote his attention and energy in connection with any other work whether in a Govt. Department or in any other institution. Lastly, the power to appoint the Secretary is conferred on the Society. The power of appointment Icon ferred on the Society is not subject to any control by any outside authority. In the matterof appointment, the officers of the Co-operative Department have no part to play. the Society that has appointed a Secretary is also empowered to remove the Secretary: S. llla or any other provision of the 1959 Act does not empower the Joint Registrar or any other officer of the Co-operative Department to appoint a Secretary much less a Secretary to be in additional charge of the post of the Secretary of a Society, but Shri Hegde contended that S. 111a is controlled by S, 128a of the 1959 Act and the regulations to be made thereunder. The heading of S. 111a is Secretary. S. 111a completely and exhaustively deals with a Secretary to be appointed to a co-operative Society. The heading of s. 128a shows that it deals with the authorities and other matters relating to employees of a Co-operative Society. The heading of S. 111a is Secretary. S. 111a completely and exhaustively deals with a Secretary to be appointed to a co-operative Society. The heading of s. 128a shows that it deals with the authorities and other matters relating to employees of a Co-operative Society. Even though the ecretary of a Society is an employee of a Co-operative Society, having regard to the specific provision made in S. 111a, one must necessarily exclude him for purposes of S. 128a of the 1959 Act. S. 1298a of the 1959 Act confers power on the Government to constitute an authority or authorities as may be prescribed by rules for recruitment, training and disciplinary control of prescribed classes of employees of the prescribed Co-operative Societies to which the State Government has given financial assistance by way of subscription to its share capital or otherwise. In case of a Society which has not received financial assistance by way of share capital or otherwise, S. 1-8a has no application at all. So far as the appointment of a Secretary under s. 111a is concerned it makes no distinction between a Society that has received financial assistance and a Society that has not received any financial assistance from the State Government. Every society whether It has received financial assistance or not is required to have a Secretary and the two sections are mutully exclusive and are intended to serve different purposes. I am therefore of the opinion that there is no merit in the contention of shri Thilak Hegde. From the foregoing it follows that the order dated 21--8-1978 (E to. J) of the Joint Registrar appointing respondent No. 2 to be in Additional charge of the Secretary is wholly without jurisdiction and is illegal. ( 10 ) SHRI Thilak Hegde next contended that in reality and substance, respondent no. 2 is a whole time salaried officer of the Society even though the order is to the contrary. In my opinion, it is not open to this Court to reconstruct the order or read the order as one by which the Joint Registrar had appointed rerpondent No 2 as a whole time salaried Secretary of the Society. Assuming that respondent No. 2 has been appointed as a whole time Secretary, even then the Joint Registrar had no power to appoint him as the whole time Secretary of the Society. Assuming that respondent No. 2 has been appointed as a whole time Secretary, even then the Joint Registrar had no power to appoint him as the whole time Secretary of the Society. I therefore reject this contention of Shri Thilak Hegde. ( 11 ) ADMITTEDLY the Society is not a Department of the Government. An officer of the Co-operative Department if he is posted to a Society will be on foreign service. Elaborate provisions have been made for those that are deputed to serve on foreign service (vide Part VII - Chapter XXVI- foreign Service Rules of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules Vol. I ). Under these Rules, it is only the Registrar that is empowered to sanction the deputation of an officer of his Department to a Co-operative society as was done in the case of respondent No. 2 on 9-2-1977 (Ext. R. 5 ). In my opinion, the claim of respondent No. 2 that it is only to remove the audit objections, he is placed in additional charge of the duties of the Secretary of the Society which is not even supported by respondent No. 1 who has not even entered appearance and filed any statement of objections, is opposed to th e provisions of the 195) Act and all service rules regulating his conditions of service. I have therefore no hesitation in rejecting the claim of respondent No. 2. ( 12 ) BEFORE parting with the case, I propose to say a word about the admirable fight of respondent No. 2 before this Court, while respondent No. 1 did not even enter appearance and contest the case. In fairness to Shri Venkatachaliah, learned High Court Government Pleader, I must record that his prayer for adjournment on behalf of respondent No. 1, which was moved almost at the close of arguments by both sides, was orally rejected by me. ( 13 ) SHRI Thilak Hegde has argued the case of respondent No. 2 with ability and thoroughness as if respondent No. 2 had some personal stakes in the matter though that is not the factual position. I am somewhat intrigued as to why respondent No. 2, who is not involved in any personal action of his own, should have thought of engaging a counsel of his own and fight the case with enthusiasm and earnestness he has displayed in the case. I am somewhat intrigued as to why respondent No. 2, who is not involved in any personal action of his own, should have thought of engaging a counsel of his own and fight the case with enthusiasm and earnestness he has displayed in the case. Anyway this is a matter which may have to be taken note of by Government and remedial action taken for avoiding such fights by their officers before Courts. In order to examine this aspect of the matter, I direct a copy of this order to be communicated to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Karnataka. ( 14 ) IN the light of my above discussion, I quash the order bearing No. ESTTRN/106/78-79 dated 21-8-78 (Exhibit J) of the Joint Registrar and issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to respondent No. 2 to hand over the records of the Society if not already done. ( 15 ) RULE made absolute. ( 16 ) IN the circumtances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .