JUDGMENT K.N. Seth, J. - The only question involved in this petition is whether the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the Registrar, Cane Co-operative Societies, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow dated 17-5-1972 was competent. It appears that Tarai and Bhabar Sugarcane Co-operative Society Ltd., Haldwani, claimed a certain sum of money against Sri Virendra Pratap Singh, respondent no. 5. The dispute was referred to Sri Bhola Duita Pandey as sole arbitrator. The arbitrator gave his award against Sri Virendra Pratap Singh. Sri Virendra Pratap Singh filed an appeal before the Cane Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Can Co-operative Societies, U.P. Lucknow who referred the appeal to the District Cane Officer, Haldwani for decision. The District Cane Officer (first appellate court) rejected the appeal and upheld the award dated 26-2-1960. Sri Virendra Pratap Singh then filed a second appeal before the Commissioner, Cane Co-operative Societies, U.P. who allowed the appeal and set aside the award of the sale arbitrator on the findings that the transaction in dispute was by tween the factory and Sri Virendra Pratap Singh and the Cane Union had nothing to do with it that the sole arbitrator being a Director of the Society was an officer of the Society and consequently not competent to act as an arbitrator ; that while the award was writ en out on 15-2-1960 the date of final hearing was fined for 26-2-1960 which indicated that the arbitrator had made up his mind even before the date of hearing fixed in the matter. The Society preferred an appeal before the Co-operative Tribunal, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow under Sec. 97 of the U P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (Act No. 11 of 1966). The Tribunal, after a careful analysis of the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 and the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (Act No. 11 of 1966), came to the conclusion that the appeal against the order of the Registrar, Cane Co-operative Societies U.P. passed in second appeal was not competent. 2. Admittedly the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 was in force when the matter was referred to be arbitrator. It is further admitted that Act No. 11 of 1966 had not come into force when the first appeal was decided by the District Cane Officer. No objection was taken to the maintainability of the second appeal under Rule 113-A of the Co-operative Societies Rules. It is further admitted that Act No. 11 of 1966 had not come into force when the first appeal was decided by the District Cane Officer. No objection was taken to the maintainability of the second appeal under Rule 113-A of the Co-operative Societies Rules. Under Rule 134 the order of the Registrar became final. 3. Under Sec. 96 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (Act No. 11 of 1966) the State Government has been authorised to constitute a Tribunal or Tribunals, each to be called Co-operative Tribunal. The Cooperative Tribunal so constituted is to exercise the powers which are mentioned in Chapter XIII of the said Act. Section 97 provides for a right of appeal against any award of the Registrar made under clause (a) of sub-section (1), or sub-section (2) of Sec. 71. The appeal preferred by the petitioner under Sec. 97 was not against any award of the Registrar but was directed against the appellate order of the Registrar passed under Rule 13 J-A framed under the old Act. 4. Section 98 of the Act provides for appeal against the awards, orders and decisions. Sub-section (2) provides : "(2) An appeal under clauses (d),(f),(g),(k) and (l) of sub-section (1) shall be preferred to the Tribunal, and an, appeal under clauses (a),(b),(c),(e), (h),(i),(j),(m) and(n) of the said sub-section shall be preferred - (a) if the decision or the order was made by the Registrar, to the State Government ; or (b) if the decision or order or award was made by any other person or authority, to the Registrar." Under clause (h) of sub-section (1) an appeal against an award made by an Arbitrator or Board of Arbitrators under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Sec. 71 shall, in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-section (2), lie to the State Government if the decision or the order was made by the Registrar and if the decision or order or award was made by any other person or authority, to the Registrar. Reading Secs. 71 (1) and (2), 97 (1) and 98 (1) (h) and ( ) together it is clear that the legislature intended that an appeal under Sec. 97 (1) shall lie to the Tribunal only when the original award has been made by the Registrar. Reading Secs. 71 (1) and (2), 97 (1) and 98 (1) (h) and ( ) together it is clear that the legislature intended that an appeal under Sec. 97 (1) shall lie to the Tribunal only when the original award has been made by the Registrar. In the present case since the original award was not made by the Registrar, the appeal to the Tribunal, which was in fact a third appeal, was not competent. The Tribunal rightly rejected the appeal as not maintainable. 5 The petition has no merit and is dismissed, parties shall bear their own costs.