JUDGMENT H. N. Seth, J. 1. (FOR self and FOR M. M. Gupta, J.) :- As the respondents have put in appearance and have filed a counter affidavit we proceed to dispose of this petition finally under proviso 2 to Rule 2 (1) of Chapter XXII of the Rules of Court. 2. BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, which is the Committee of Management of Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Abdullah-pur challenges the validity of the order passed by the Assistant Resistrar, Cooperative Societies, Saharanpur dated 21st of November, 1977 exercising powers under Section 29 (4) of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act and appointing an administrator on the ground that the Society had failed to elect the Committee of Management on 30-9-1977. Case of the petitioner is that there was a primary cooperative society named Abdullahpur Alipur Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Abdullahpur, district Saharanpur. There was another primary society known as Mohiddinpur Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Saharanpur. In its annual general meeting held on 6th of April, 1975 Alipur Sadhan Sahkari Samiti passed a resolution that it be merged with the Mohiddinpur Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Saharanpur. After amalgamation of the two cooperative societies, a new Primary Sadhan Sahkarl Samiti, known as Abdullahpur Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Abdullahpur came into existence. The annual general meeting of the new Sadhan Sahkarl Samiti was held on 20th of July, 1975 and in that meeting election for the Committee of Management of the new society also took place. The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U. P. by his order dated 22nd December, 1975 recognised the new Sadhan Sahkarl Samiti and acting under Section 15 of the Cooperative Societies Act cancelled the registration of Mohiuddinpur Sadhan Sahkarl Samiti Ltd. 3. ON 21st November, 1977 the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Saharanpur passed the impugned order appointing an administrator under Section 29 (4) of the Cooperative Societies Act on the ground that the term of the Committee of Management had expired on 30th of June 1977 and that no election had taken place before that date. 4. THE petitioner has come up before this Court and contends that the term of the Committee of Management is three cooperative years. As in this case the Committee of Management was elected in July, 1975, its term is due to expire only in June, 1978. 4. THE petitioner has come up before this Court and contends that the term of the Committee of Management is three cooperative years. As in this case the Committee of Management was elected in July, 1975, its term is due to expire only in June, 1978. In the circumstances, no question of the Committee of Management failing to elect a new Committee of Management before the expiry of its term could possibly arise at this stage. The order appointing an Administrator under Section 29 (4) is, therefore, illegal. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it has been asserted that the meeting which is said to have taken place on 20th of July, 1975 was invalid inasmuch as it had not been, as prescribed by Rule 440 of the rules framed under the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, supervised by an election officer appointed by the District Magistrate. As no valid election for electing the Committee of Management had taken place, the Assistant Registrar was perfectly justified in appointing an Administrator under Section 29 (4) of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act. 5. WE are unable to accept the submission made by the respondents. The respondents have, in the counter affidavit, attempted to set up a case justifying appointment of an Administrator which is quite different from that contained in the impugned order. A perusal of the impugned order shows that in the view of the Assistant Registrar there was a Committee of Management in existence whose term expired on 30th of June, 1977 and that he passed the order appointing an Administrator, as no election to elect a Committee of Management had taken place before 30-6-1977. The case which is being set up by the respondents now is that the term of some Committee of Management had expired before June, 1975 and that the Assistant Registrar appointed the Administrator as no general meeting to elect the members of the Committee of Management had taken place before that date. In our opinion, the respondents cannot, at this stage, be allowed to take up the case set up by them In their counter affidavit and to justify the Impugned order on grounds inconsistent with those stated in the order itself. 6. In our opinion, the respondents cannot, at this stage, be allowed to take up the case set up by them In their counter affidavit and to justify the Impugned order on grounds inconsistent with those stated in the order itself. 6. COMING now to the validity of the reasons for appointment of Administrator, as stated in the order, we find that it is not disputed that the existing Committee of Management was elected on 20-7-1975. Its three years' term is not due to expire before 30-6-1978. As in this case the term of the existing Committee of Management is not due to expire before 30-6-1978, there was absolutely no justification for the Assistant Registrar to appoint an Administrator under Section 29 (4) of the Cooperative Societies Act and the impugned order cannot be sustained. Further, we are of the opinion that the Assistant Registrar is also not right in interpreting Rule 414 of the Rules framed under the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act. This rule lays down that where the Registrar makes a request to the District Magistrate for appointing an election officer in respect of the societies enumerated therein, the District Magistrate shall appoint a gazetted officer who shall be an election officer and who shall supervise the election. The rule neither enjoins upon the cooperative societies to make a request for appointment of election officer nor does it lay down that if an election has been held in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rules 439 to 444 but without an election officer having been appointed, it would be invalid. In the circumstances, the order passed by the Assistant Registrar cannot be justified even on the grounds mentioned by him in his counter affidavit. 7. THE petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 21st of November, 1977 passed by the Assistant Registrar is quashed. 8. THE petitioner shall be entitled to his costs. Petition allowed.