( 1 ) THE petitioner is an employee in the postal Department, He is a shareholder of the society called "the Bangalore Postal Employees Consumers' Cooperative Society Ltd. ("the Society") the Society was registered under the karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 ("the Act") to cater to the needs of the employees; but unfortunately the society did not properly function ever since 1972. It is said that the activities of the Society has come to a standstill. ( 2 ) THE petitioner and several other members of the Society repeatedly complained to the Registrar and also to the Government bringing to their notice the illegal activities of the office bearers of the Society and in particular of the Secretary of the Society who is respondent No. 3 herein with a request to hold an enquiry into the affairs of the Society. But no positive action was taken by the concerned officials of the department. ( 3 ) I may here briefly refer to the attempts made by the petitioner from time to time although under law ho is not required to do it. He made representations to the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bangalore-I circle on 19-7-1976, 3. 8. 1977, 5. 9. 1977 and 5-10. 1977. In all those representations, the petitioner has complained that the Management has not convened the general body meeting since five years. He has requested the Registrar to fix the responsibility on the - office bearers of the Society for their negligence or dereliction of duty. It is said that upon that complaint the assistant Registrar called upon the secretary to appear before him for enquiry with all the relevant records and books of the Society; but the enquiry could not be held as the secretary did not appear. On 14-12-1977 several members of the Society presented a petition to the Hon'ble Minister for co-operation setting out the commissions and omissions committed by the Committee of Management of the Society with a request to take early action against the office bearers. That representation also appears to have fallen on deaf ears. Finally, the petitioner got issued a lawyer's notice dated the 25th May, 1978 to the Registrar reminding him about the series of representations made earlier by him and calling upon him to take action as per law against the Committee of management. Even then, no action was taken. That representation also appears to have fallen on deaf ears. Finally, the petitioner got issued a lawyer's notice dated the 25th May, 1978 to the Registrar reminding him about the series of representations made earlier by him and calling upon him to take action as per law against the Committee of management. Even then, no action was taken. The petitioner left with no other alternative, has now moved this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for an appropriate direction against the Registrar to set the law in motion against the erring office bearers of the Society and to convene its general body meeting. ( 4 ) IT is conceded by Sri Nataraj, learned High Court Government pleader that no general body meeting of the Society was convened for the past several years. The facts, therefore, are undisputed that the Registrar or the concerned officers under whose jurisdiction the Society in question comes, have not taken appropriate action in spite of the repeated requests from the petitioner and other members of the Society. ( 5 ) THE Registrar is the head of the department. All officers and persons employed in the administration of the Co-operative Department shall be subject to the superintendence, directions and control of the State Government and the Registrar. S. 27 provides for annual general meeting of a Society. It shall be held once in a year for the purpose of approval of the programme of the activities of the Society; election, if any, in the prescribed manner of the members of committee; consideration of the annual report and such other matters. Sub-sec. (2) thereof provides that if any default is made in calling annual general meeting, the Registrar may by order declare any officer or member of the Committee whose duty it was to call such meeting and who without reasonable excuse, failed to call such meeting and the Registrar may impose on him a fine not exceeding Rs. 100. S. 28 provides for convening special general meeting. The Registrar also has got power to direct the Committee to convene any such special gsneral meeting. ( 6 ) SS. 63 to 69 confer enormous power on the Registrar. S. 63 casts an obligation on the Registrar to audit or cause to be audited by a person authorised by him, the accounts of every co-operative society at least once in each year. ( 6 ) SS. 63 to 69 confer enormous power on the Registrar. S. 63 casts an obligation on the Registrar to audit or cause to be audited by a person authorised by him, the accounts of every co-operative society at least once in each year. The audit shall include an examination of the accounts, the verification of the cash balance and securities, and valuation of the assets and liabilities. S. 64 confers power on the Registrar to hold an enquiry into any matter. He could summon any person for the purpose of enquiry. Notwithstanding any rule or bye-law specifying the period of notice for a general meeting of the society, the registrar may require the officers of the society to call a general meeting at such time and place to determine such matters as may be directed by him. S. 65 again confers power on the Registrar to inspect or direct any person to inspect the books of the society. Under s. 66 he could seize such books and property if he has reason to believe that any books or other property of the society are likely to be tampered with. S. 69 authorises the Registrar to surcharge those persons who have caused any deficiency in the assets of the society. These are the mechanism provided under the Act to eradicate the evils in the co-operative movement and to deal with an inefficient and recalcitrant society. ( 7 ) THE present case unfolds two pathetic pictures. First, it furnishes the helplessness of share-holders of co-operative societies when the Committee of Management acts with impunity by flouting all the rules, bye- laws and provisions of the Act, Second, it reveals a distressing and dismal picture as to the functioning of the co-operative Department where an army of officers with ample powers are maintained at the tax-payers' money. In spite of such sweeping powers conferred upon them, it is regretable to note that they have not taken action at the appropriate stage against the Committee of Management they should have been alarmed and concerned at the repeated complaints of the petitioner and other members of the Society. They kept quiet as if it was not their responsibility to look into the affairs of the Society. They kept quiet as if it was not their responsibility to look into the affairs of the Society. This is clearly an illegal action on the part of the officialdom by neglect of duty and i hope the Government in the public interest should promptly hold the concerned officers accountable for their lapses. ( 8 ) MR. Nataraj, learned High Court government Pleader filed a memo on 22-7-1980 stating that the Registrar would initiate action for the purpose of appointing an Administrator as provided under S. 30 of the Act and proper action would be taken against persons responsible for misappropriation and other irregularities, if any, after getting the audit report, in accordance with law. He also produced before me a copy of the notice dated 25th july, 1980 issued under S. 30 (1) of the act by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Bangalore City district calling upon the Management to show cause against the irregularities or the charges set out in the said notice. The contemplated action coming as it does at this belated stage is a very poor consolation to the petitioner as rightly contended by Sri Srikanteshwaran, learned Advocate for the petitioner. It seems to me that the Registrar in addition to the action contemplated under s. 30, ought to have taken steps to convene a special or general body meeting of the society. That would have given an opportunity to the members of the Society to air their grievances, discuss their problems and pin down the office bearers. ( 9 ) IN the result, the petition is allowed. A direction shall issue to the registrar to take all necessary actions forthwith against the Committee of Management of the Society in question within the framework of the Act. ( 10 ) THE petitioner is entitled to his costs. Advocates fee Rs. 250 payable by the respondents. ( 11 ) A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Chief Secretary for information and suitable action. --- *** --- .