JUDGMENT J. M. L Sinha, J. -These are connected writ petitions involving a common question of law and can, therefore, conveniently be disposed of by one and the same judgment. 2. There is an All India Hand-loom Fabrics Marketing Co-operative Society Limited at Bombay (hereinafter called the Marketing Society) registered under Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies Act. Its field of operation covers the whole of the country. Bye-law 31 (3) of the Marketing Society provides for the election of a representative of 'B class shareholders of the Co-operative Societies of the State. There is a Co-operative Society known as Silk Industrial Cooperative Society, Ltd. Varanasi (hereinafter called the Co-operative Society). It had sent one representative to the Marketing Society. In view of the Bye-law of the Marketing Society, a communique was received by the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies U. P. for initiating action for the election of one representative of B-class share-holders from the State. The Registrar deputed Deputy Registrar (Hand-looms) to conduct the election and the Deputy Registrar (Hand-looms) accordingly, conducted the election and declared Rahmatullah Ansari as duly elected delegate to represent B-Class members of the State of the Marketing Society. This declaration was made on 21st February, 1979. Thereafter, on some representation made to the Registrar, he passed an order dated 26th May, 1979, setting aside the election of the petitioner held on 21st February, 1979, on the ground that the election had been held by the Deputy Registrar while it should have been held by the Registrar. Rahmatullah Ansari has filed Writ Petition No. 2533 of 1979 assailing that order. The other Writ Petition No. 2345 of 1979 has been filed by Abdul Karim, in his capacity as representative of M/s. Bunkar Co-operative Societies Limited Kanpur, assailing the election of Rahmatullah Ansari as a delegate to the Marketing Society. It has been alleged in Writ Petition No. 2345 of 1979 that despite the order dated 26th March, 1979 Rahmatullah Ansari was functioning as a delegate and hence a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued to the Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, Registrar Co-operative Societies, Central Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the Marketing Society not to recognise Sri Rahmat Ullah Ansari as a delegate and further directing the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U. P. Lucknow to conduct the election of the delegate afresh according to rules. 3. 3. The ground of defence set up on behalf of the respondents in writ petition No. 2533 of 1979 is that the election of Rahmatullah Ansari as delegate was void, ab initio, the election having been conducted by the Deputy Registrar instead of Registrar and hence no relief can be granted in that writ petition. The defence set up in writ petition No. 2345 of 1979 on the contrary is that the Deputy Registrar was competent to conduct the election and Rahmat Ullah Ansari was validly declared as delegate. 4. From the above, it would appeal that one question involved for consideration in both the writ petitions is whether the Deputy Registrar (Hand-looms) was competent to conduct the election of the delegate to the Marketing Society. 5. Learned counsel for Abdul Karim (petitioner in writ petition No. 2345 of 1979) referred us to bye-law 31 of the Marketing Society, which states that the manner in which the representatives are to be elected should be determined by the Registrar Co-operative Societies of the particular State. Learned counsel conceded, that since a representative had to be elected from B-Class share-holders of the co-operative societies in the State of U. P. It was the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies U. P. who had to determine the manner in which the representatives were to be elected. In fact the argument raised was that, in view of the language contained in bye-law No. 31, it was the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies-U. P. alone who could conduct the election. 6. The question as to who would be the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies U. P.. should rest on the interpretation of the provisions contained in the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act. 7. The expression "Registrar" has been defined in Section 2 (r) of the U. P Cooperative Societies Act as follows:- "Registrar means the person for the time being appointed as Registrar of Cooperative Societies under sub-section (1) of Section 3 and includes any person appointed under sub-section (2) of that section when exercising all or any of the powers of the Registrar". It will be relevant to mention the relevant part of Section 3 as well. It is as under:- (1) The State Government may appoint a person to be the Registrar of Cooperative Societies for the State. It will be relevant to mention the relevant part of Section 3 as well. It is as under:- (1) The State Government may appoint a person to be the Registrar of Cooperative Societies for the State. (2) The State Government may for the purposes of this Act, also appoint other persons to assist the Registrar and by general or special order confer on any such person all or any of the powers, of the Registrar. (3) .........(not relevant)". 8. It is admitted between the parties that the Deputy Registrar (Hand-looms) has been appointed by the State Govt, through a notification under Section 3 (2) of the Act to assist the Registrar, and some powers of the Registrar have been conferred on him. Now, once it is accepted that the Deputy Registrar (Hand-looms) was appointed under Section 3 (2) of the Act and some powers of the Registrar had been conferred on him, S. 2 (r) of the Act would immediately be attracted. We have already reproduced S. 2 (r) earlier. It expressly states that the term Registrar shall include any person appointed under sub-section (2) of Section 3 when exercising all or any powers of the Registrar. In that context there is no escape from conclusion that the Deputy Registrar (Hand-looms) was a 'Registrar" within the meaning of Section 2 (r). 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner (in writ petition No. 2345 of 1979) urged that a person may be appointed as Assistant Registrar or Deputy Registrar under Section 3 (2) of the Act but such appointment can be only for the purposes of U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, placing reliance on the words "for the purposes of this Act" occurring in sub-section (2) of Section 3 learned counsel stressed that a person appointed under Section 3 (2) of the Act could not be deemed to be a 'Registrar for the purpose of Bye-law 31 of the Marketing Society. We have given our careful thought to the contention raised but we regret our inability to accept the same. We have given our careful thought to the contention raised but we regret our inability to accept the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner himself conceded at the outset and that 'Registrar referred to in Bye-law 31 in the instant case shall mean the Registrar of Co-operative Societies U. P. The term 'Registrar having been defined in the U. P. Act we must look to that definition only to find the meaning of Registrar and not to Section 3 which merely relates to appointment of Registrar and appointment of other officers to assist the Registrar, and exercised such powers of the Registrar as may be conferred on him. The contention raised is, accordingly, rejected. 10. In writ petition No. 2345 of 1979, the only contention raised is that the election of Rahmat Ullah Ansari is invalid having been conducted by the Deputy Registrar (Hand-looms). In view of the finding recorded above, that the Deputy Registrar being included in the term 'Registrar he was competent to conduct the election, the contention must fail as devoid of substance. 11. Coming to the Writ Petition No. 2533 of 1979, the grievance of Rahmat Ullah Ansari petitioner is that the Registrar passed the impugned order without affording him any opportunity to show cause. This fact is not controverted by the respondents. All that was urged was that it was not necessary to afford an opportunity to show cause to Rahmat Ullah Ansari petitioner before passing the impugned order. The principle of natural justice has now become an integral part of Administrative law. It is well settled that if any order is passed, which is adverse to any party, opportunity to show cause must be given to him. An order passed against any person without affording an opportunity to show cause would clearly be violative of principles of natural justice and cannot be maintained. 12. As also stated earlier, the only other ground of defence set up in this writ petition was that the election of the petitioner was void ab initio as the election was held by Deputy Registrar (Hand- looms) instead of the Registrar, and hence the petitioner was not entitled to any relief, even if it be accepted that the impugned order dated 26th March, 1979, was bad in law having been passed without affording any opportunity to show cause. We have, however, already held earlier that the Deputy Registrar (Hand-looms) was competent to conduct the election. That contention must, therefore, fail. 13. In the result, therefore, Writ Petition No. 2533 of 1979, filed by Rahmat Ullah Ansari is allowed and the order dated 26th March, 1979, is quashed. Writ Petition No. 2345 of 1979 however, fails and is hereby dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs in both the writ petitions. The stay order passed in Writ Petition No. 2533 of 1979 is vacated.