JUDGMENT : V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. - This civil appeal by special leave has proceeded on a complete confusion regarding the facts, if we may so say, notwithstanding the circumstance that the High Court itself had clarified that the point urged before us had not been adversely decided by either the Registrar or the State Government whose orders were attacked under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. A few facts may be mentioned to explain why we are dismissing the appeal without deciding any point. The Bihar State Labour Cooperative Federation Limited is an apex body of federal character with many cooperative societies as members. It is stated that there are as many as 35 member societies and the management of the apex society is to periodically constitute board elected by the members societies. The present appellants claim to be the members of the Board elected by the member societies but the fact remains that the election which is alleged (but disputed by the opposite party) to have been held on 28-12-1977 was held after notice to only 16 members and not to all the 35 members. Whether this step is valid or renders the election invalid is a question which Shri Jagdish Swarup, learned counsel for the appellants, wanted to argue before us, but we did not agree to hear him on this question and left the matter open for decision in an appropriate litigation because that issue does not arise in the appeal before us. 3. There was a Board functioning in 1974 which apparently was to ensure for one year. Its term would have come to an end in 1975 But by virtue of certain statutory provisions. its term was extended to 31-12-1977. This any way is the case of the appellants and we are not disposed to examine whether that is correct or not. However, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies proceeded on the assumption that the term of the Board had ceased by 1975 and acting on the assumption that there was a void thereafter in the management of the society, he proceeded to exercise his power of superseding a supposed illegal continuance of the Board which had expired in 1975 and for the purpose of legitimate management he appointed a Special Officer. He overlooked the fact that the earlier Board of 1974 had had the right to continue in management down to 31-12-1977. He overlooked the fact that the earlier Board of 1974 had had the right to continue in management down to 31-12-1977. Be that as it may, when the order superseding the Board was made the appellants claimed to have been already elected as the new Board and so they challenged the order of the Registrar since they were directly affected. They moved an appeal to the State Government which dismissed the appeal. The Registrar had the power to supersede provided there were grounds to do so. The Government, as the appellate authority, had the power to hear the appeal and pass appropriate orders. Right or wrong, the Government dismissed the appeal but in the course of the order incidentally made some reference to the new Board consisting of the appellant as having been elected without notice to all the 35 member-societies. This was part of the statements of facts and was not a decisive basis of the conclusion reached. The High Court dismissed the writ petition at the instance of the appellants and repelled the challenge to the order of the Government as well as of the Registrar. But the question of the validity of the appellant Board's election was mentioned by the High Court as not the deciding factor. The High Court rightly pointed out that the Government did not rest its conclusion on the basis of the invalidity of the appellant Board's election. We cannot, therefore, go into the question of the validity of the appellant Board's election for the short reason that no such question did arise before the Government and no such issue deserves to be decided for upsetting the supersession or the appointment of a Special Officer. 4. We do not pronounce therefore upon the legality of the election of the appellant Board. May be the election is good or may be it is bad-in-law. That is a question to be adjudicated upon when the issue is squarely raised in an appropriate litigation between affected parties. At the moment, the High Court has also not pronounced on it. In case the appellant Board feels aggrieved by the Special officer intermeddling in the affairs of the, society it is open to the appellant to seek appropriate remedies and make good their contention they are validly elected and that the Special Officer has no jurisdiction. With these observations, we dismiss the appeal. 5. In case the appellant Board feels aggrieved by the Special officer intermeddling in the affairs of the, society it is open to the appellant to seek appropriate remedies and make good their contention they are validly elected and that the Special Officer has no jurisdiction. With these observations, we dismiss the appeal. 5. The parties will bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.