ORDER 1. This application has been taken out under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Amalesh Sarkar, a citizen of India, against the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the Board of Administrators appointed by the Government of West Bengal under S.26 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1973 for various reliefs. 2. The case of the petitioner is that although he is a citizen of India and he is a permanent resident of Calcutta but in the year 1969 he went to U.S.A. for higher studies in Chemical Engineering and after completing the course he has been working in U.S.A. for the purpose of gaining practical experiences. The petitioner had and still has all the intention of returning to India in the near future and settle down in Calcutta. The petitioner has no house, tenement or flat in West Bengal and he is in urgent and/or pressing need of a flat in Calcutta where he intends to settle down with his family. 3. The respondent No.2, Karnani Co-operative Housing Society is governed by the bye laws of the said Society. The area of operation of the said Society is in Calcutta district. The said society was formed with the object of establishing on co-operative basis settlements or housing schemes for persons with moderate incomes by affording each with settled facilities for having a house or flat and ultimately develop as far as practicable the settlements so established into a self-sufficient communities. The petitioner duly applied to become a member of the said Society and on May 21, 1977 paid a sum of Rs.50/- being the prescribed fees for such membership. He is also the holder of two shares of the said Society. Before the petitioner could be admitted as a member of the said Society, the then Managing Committee of the Society was fully satisfied as to the requirements of the Membership and on the petitioner’s fulfilment of those require conditions. The petitioner also paid a sum of Rs.13,000/- on 24th of May, 1977 towards. The cost of construction of the house on co-operative basis at No.9. Mandaville Gardens. The petitioner also paid a sum of Rs.13,000/- on 24th of May, 1977 towards. The cost of construction of the house on co-operative basis at No.9. Mandaville Gardens. On June 21, 1977 the petitioner was informed by the Society that he has been allotted a three bed roomed flat being flat No. A 3 having area of 1600 square feet on the third floor of the Society’s Apartment called “Meera Apartments” at No.9, Mandevilla Garden, Calcutta-19 4. On June 22, 1972 by a notification dated 21st June, 1977 being No. 2152 Co-Op/B/8A-14/77 published in the Calcutta Gazette Extra Ordinary, the Governor of West Bengal was pleaded to dissolve the Managing Committee under S.26 of the said Act and to appoint a Board of Administrators consisting of Respondents Nos.3, 4 and 5 for the purpose of managing the affairs of the said Society for a period of one year with effect from the said date of the notification. By a letter dated 26th September, 1977 the Board of Administrators requested the petitioner to deposit a further sum of Rs. 8400/- to make a total sum of Rs.30,400/- for the purpose of construction of the building upto the deck slab. The petitioner drew the attention of the Board that he was required to deposit a sum of Rs.7400/- and not Rs.8400/- as claimed by the Board, hence the petitioner on October 3, 1977 paid to the Society through the Board the said sum of Rs.7400/- and thereby duly complied with the requirement of Rule 7(b) of the bye laws of the Society. The Board duly accepted said payment. By a letter dated 5th December, 1977 the Board again informed the petitioner that there was a provision for car parking in the basement and the ground floor of the said Society’s building and it would be available for the petitioner provided he paid a sum of Rs.7000/- and the petitioner duly paid a sum of Rs.7400/- on 18th January, 1978. By a letter dated 5th/14th January, 1978 the Board in formed the petitioner that one A-type of flat with three bed rooms on the third floor of the building had been allotted to the petitioner pursuant to a decision taken by the Board at a meeting held on 26th November, 1977 and directed that the entire purchase price of the said flat should be paid in three instalments first of such instalment to be paid by May, 1978 of a sum of Rs.50,000/- and the third instalment should be paid by November 1978. Since the receipt of the said letter the petitioner paid further instalments to the said Board of Administrators comprising of Rs.14,700/- on June, 1978. Rs.20,800/- on June 10, 1978 and Rs.14,550/- on July 25, 1978. The Board on behalf of the Co-operative Society duly accepted the said payment without any protest and utillised the said sums for the construction of the building. 5. All on a sudden the petitioner was informed by a letter dated 28th of November, 1978 written by Sri S.K. Banerjee. Respondent No.4 enclosing therewith a report prepared by an inspecting officer appointed by Respondent No.1 and was asked to clarify certain points of objections raised in the said letter within ten days from the receipt of the said letter. The petitioner’s grievance is that the said enquiry is mala fide, unwarranted And has been done behind the back of the petitioner without giving him any opportunity of being heard. From the perusal of the said report it would appear that the inspecting officer has come to the conclusion, without disclosing the source wherefrom he has obtained the information, that the petitioner is in service at U.S.A. and the length of the stay in U.S.A. is not clear from the records. The said report also contained a statement that the petitioner had given a power of attorney to his father-in-law and also appointed a Solicitor for the purpose of negotiating with the Society. According to the Inspector’s report the petitioner’s Solicitor informed that the petitioner would return and stay in Calcutta after three years. The Inspector was of the opinion in his report that there is no pressing need for the petitioner to settle in the Society’s Apartment and that fact has been convincingly established. According to the Inspector’s report the petitioner’s Solicitor informed that the petitioner would return and stay in Calcutta after three years. The Inspector was of the opinion in his report that there is no pressing need for the petitioner to settle in the Society’s Apartment and that fact has been convincingly established. It further contained that the petitioner’s return to India within the required time as per bye law No.7(B) is uncertain, his stay is outside the area of the operation of the Society which made him ineligible for Society’s membership. The petitioner’s complaint is that any enquiry held behind the back of the petitioner without giving him any notice or to his father in law in whose favour a power of attorney has been given without disclosing the source of information and by recording incorrect statements the Respondents have acted mala fide arbitrarily and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner’s case is that this purported enquiry and the preparation of the inspection report at the instance of the Registrar of the Co-operative Society is an eye-wash and colourable as this case has been done deliberately with an ulterior motive of depriving the allotment of the flat made in favour of the petitioner without any reason whatsoever and the said ulterior purpose would be evident from the subsequent events which have taken place ultimately. Moreover it would appear that the petitioner has not violated bye-laws No. 7(B) of the said Society but on the contrary the petitioner has duly complied with the said Rule by duly making payments as required by the Society. The petitioner by letter dated 19th January, 1979 explained to the Chairman of the Board of Administrators that he has not signed any agreement with his employee company at U.S.A. for any fixed period of time hence he is free to leave the said company at any time he desired any in fact he has a plan to return to India with his family and settle down in the flat allotted by the Society. 6. The petitioner’s definite case is that there had been no proper enquiry at all as the petitioner has not appointed and Solicitor hence the said unnamed Solicitor could not give any information on behalf of the petitioner. 6. The petitioner’s definite case is that there had been no proper enquiry at all as the petitioner has not appointed and Solicitor hence the said unnamed Solicitor could not give any information on behalf of the petitioner. So any statement recording the duration of his stay at U.S.A. and his plan to return to India is not borne out by facts. Moreover, the said report is motivated as the flat in question is not yet complete, as such, the question of the petitioner taking immediate possession of the same could not arise at that stage. Moreover, the petitioner’s claim in respect of the said flat is genuine and bona fide as the petitioner has spent huge sum out of his hard earned money for the purpose of assisting the Society to construct the said building. After having accepted the petitioner as a member and after having received the money paid by instalments and after all wing a specific flat to the petitioner, the Respondents are not entitled to deprive the petitioner of his right which he has already acquired as there has been no violation by the petitioner of any of the rules and bye-laws of the said Society. In view of the said report filed by the Inspector at the instance of The Registrar of Co-operative Society and at the instance and/or direction of the registrar of Co-operative Society the Board terminated the petitioner’s membership of the Society by a letter dated 15th March, 1979. It is the petitioner’s definite case that the said termination of membership has been done by Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 at the instruction of Respondent No.1 who has acted mala fide and has shown special interest in respect of the said flat and thereby he is interested in depriving the petitioner of his right to own the said flat so that the said flat can be made available for allotment in favour of a person of his choice. There are provisions in the bye-laws of the said Society for cancellation of membership on the ground as set out in the said bye-laws. As the petitioner has not violated or committed any breach of the said Rules and bye-laws, so the petitioner’s membership cannot at all be terminated by the Board of Administrators of the Registrar of Co-operative Society. There are provisions in the bye-laws of the said Society for cancellation of membership on the ground as set out in the said bye-laws. As the petitioner has not violated or committed any breach of the said Rules and bye-laws, so the petitioner’s membership cannot at all be terminated by the Board of Administrators of the Registrar of Co-operative Society. Hence, the said letter of termination is illegal, mala fide, wrongful, ultra vires and issued out of extraneous considerations and without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Moreover, it is the petitioner’s case that out of so many members, the Petitioner has been specially chosen amongst others who are similarly situated and has been discriminated pre-judicially. 7. The said purported termination of membership is definitely contrary to the Rules and bye-laws of the Society. The time required for occupation of the said flat under bye-laws 7B does not run and cannot run until and unless the said flat is fit and ready for occupation and the possession whereof is offered to the members. When the petitioner applied for membership he was a resident abroad which would be evident from the application form which was duly filed in by the petitioner by giving his present address in U.S.A., hence when the Society admitted the petitioner as a member, the Society was fully aware that for the time being the petitioner was not resident in Calcutta and he was stationed abroad. After taking into consideration of all the facts which had been stated in the application form the Society thought it fit to make the petitioner a member and since then he had complied with all the provisions of the Rules and bye-laws of the said Society. The petitioner’s vested right of being an allottee of A-3 flat has been purported to be taken away by the Registrar by mala fide exercise of his executive discretion which is violative of the provisions of the constitution of India; hence the petitioner prays that the said letter of termination be set aside and direction be given on the Respondents to forbear from giving effect to the said letter of termination. 8. The petitioner demanded justice by a letter dated 24th March, 1979 which has been denied to him. The petitioner has no other efficacious, adequate or alternate legal remedy except the present proceedings. 9. 8. The petitioner demanded justice by a letter dated 24th March, 1979 which has been denied to him. The petitioner has no other efficacious, adequate or alternate legal remedy except the present proceedings. 9. Form the letter dated 5th of January, 1978 it would appear that one of the Administrators i.e. Respondent No.3 has informed the petitioner that a flat has been finally allotted in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the Board’s decision taken on the 26th November, 1977. The letter further informed the petitioner that the flat would be complete by June, 1979 From the letter dated 22nd April, 1978 it would appear that the Respondent No.3 has informed the petitioner that the Registrar of Co-operative Society, West Bengal was desirous of knowing certain points as to the petitioner’s stay outside the area of operation of the Co-operative Society and the reasons for such stay and whether the petitioner actually intends to stay in the housing complex when the flats are ready and whether there is any possibility of the petitioner returning to the area of operation of the Co-operative Society within the period of 3 to 5. By a letter dated 26th April, 1978 Sri Amalesh Sarkar immediately informed the Board of Administrators that although he is at present residing in the United States and working there he intends to return to India within three years and he further intends to reside in the housing complex at Mandevilla Gardens with his family. From the letter dated 28th of November, 1978 written by the Respondent No.4 it would appear that the inspection was conducted by an Officer of the Co-operative Directorate as per the direction of the Registrar of Co-operative Society. The abstract of the report which has been annexed to the petition will show that the Inspector has remarked that there is no immediate or pressing need of the petitioner to settle in the Society’s apartment and the said fact has been convincingly established. He has also commented that the possibility of the return of the petitioner within the required time as per by-laws 7B is uncertain. The report further contain a statement that the petitioner’s stay outside the area of the operation of the Society made him ineligible for the Society’s membership. He has also commented that the possibility of the return of the petitioner within the required time as per by-laws 7B is uncertain. The report further contain a statement that the petitioner’s stay outside the area of the operation of the Society made him ineligible for the Society’s membership. By a letter dated January 19, 1979 the petitioner also explained that although he had gone to America for graduating in Chemical Engineering and thereafter obtaining practical experience, he has no desire to settle in America and he has very intention to come back to India. As has not entered into any agreement with the employer company at U.S.A. be could return to India at any time he wanted to. From the letter of termination dated 15th March, 1979. it would appear that the Respondent No.4 has brought it to the notice of the petitioner that as it has been observed by the Registrar of Co-operative Society, West Bengal that the petitioner is not a resident of Calcutta and Settled in U.S.A. as such, it is not likely that the petitioner will return in the near future. In view of what has been stated in the said letter the Society was reluctantly compelled to terminate the membership of the petitioner. Until and unless there has been a breach of the specific provision of the said rules and bye-laws the Respondents are not entitled to terminate the membership of the petitioner and cancel the said allotment. Not only the petitioner is a citizen of India but he is a permanent resident of Calcutta but is in temporary service in America for the purpose of gaining practical experience. More over, he is a bona fide member for the purpose of settling in the flat allotted in his favour by the Society. His claim in respect of the flat is genuine as he does not own any house or any flat in Calcutta. He is ready and willing to pay the balance of the money as and when called upon by the Society. 10. Mr. R.C. Deb on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the notice of termination speaks of violation of Rule 7B when in fact from the perusal of the said bye-law it would appear that the petitioner has not violated the said provision. 10. Mr. R.C. Deb on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the notice of termination speaks of violation of Rule 7B when in fact from the perusal of the said bye-law it would appear that the petitioner has not violated the said provision. Moreover, various provisions as laid down under the bye-laws have not been adhered to by the Respondents nor there exists the circumstances under which bye-laws 11 and 12 can be attracted. There exists no ground whatsoever on which the membership could be cancelled. Moreover, there has been a positive allegation of mala fides against the Registrar which fact has not been denied by the Registrar personally as has chosen not to file any affidavit denying the said charges. In paragraph 24 of the petition there is a specific allegation of mala fides. But the affidavit in opposition filed by Haradhan Bhattacharyya affirmed on 28th June, 1979 has not dealt with the said allegation. Hence, the said specific charge of mala fide has not been denied and/or dealt with by anybody on behalf of the respondents. Mr. Deb relied on the minutes and submitted that the minutes of the said meeting is a glaring instance of mala fide, bias and wrongful conduct on the part of the Registrar Co-operative Society which should clearly shock the conscience of this Court. The Board of Administrators could not have any independent judgment of Discretion as the decision of the Registrar taken on 2nd March, 1979 was already imposed on them. Hence, the decision taken by the Board on 10th of March, 1979 is only in the nature of carrying out the mandatory direction of the Registrar and following the said direction a letter was sent to the petitioner. The administrators merely acted as a post office and from the materials and records it would be apparent that the Board of Administrators had surrendered their own discretion and had been influenced by the direction of the Registrar of Co-operative Society. 11. Mr. The administrators merely acted as a post office and from the materials and records it would be apparent that the Board of Administrators had surrendered their own discretion and had been influenced by the direction of the Registrar of Co-operative Society. 11. Mr. Deb further submitted that the Registrar of Co-operative Society acted not only mala fide but has shown a definite bias in favour of a particular applicant for the flat which would be evident from the fact that the said decision was taken by the Registrar of Co-operative Society on 2nd of March, 1979 even before the petitioner’s membership could be cancelled by resolution passed as the meeting held on 10th March, 1979. Mr. R.C. Deb submitted that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under the Constitution of India is very wide and to administer Justice this Court could pass any order in proper cases. From the minutes of the meeting held on 10th March, 1979 it would appear that, after having detailed discussions held in the chamber of Registrar of Co-operative Society on the 2nd of March, 1979 the Registrar of Co-operative Society advised that the member ship of Sri Amalesh Sarkar should be cancelled forthwith. The Registrar of Co-operative Society advised that a final decision for cancellation should be Taken; thereafter the Board resolved to terminate the membership of Amalesh Sarkar and it would appear from paragraph 4 of the said minuets that the Registrar of Co-operative Society advised on 2nd March, 1979 that the flat A-3 vacated due to the termination of membership of Sri Amalesh Sarkar be allotted to Mr. Justice A.K. Basu (Retd.). As per his advice the Board resolved and allotted the flat to Justice A.K. Basu (Retd.). It shows that whatever order has been passed by the Board of Administrators have been done on the advice and at the dictation of the Registrar of Co-operative Society. He referred to various cases. 12. Mr. Dipankar Gupta appeared on behalf of the respondents and submitted first of all that no writ ties against Co-operative Societies hence this application is misconceived and no order can be passed on this application. He referred to various cases. 12. Mr. Dipankar Gupta appeared on behalf of the respondents and submitted first of all that no writ ties against Co-operative Societies hence this application is misconceived and no order can be passed on this application. His next submission is that as there has been a violation of Rule 12 of the said Co-operative Societies the petitioner’s membership has been duly cancelled moreover the petitioner is not a resident of Calcutta as a result he does not come within operation of the said society. Thirdly according to Mr. Gupta the relationship between the management of the Co-operative and thereof the petitioner is purely contractual in nature so far breach of such contractual obligation no relief can be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the opinion of the Managing Committed and the Board of Administrators the need of the petitioner for a Housing Estate is not pressing. This Co-operative Society have been formed to meet the pressing need of shortage of housing accommodation in Calcutta for people who have no house, flat, or other living facilities in Calcutta. The claim of such persons shall have precedence over the claim of the petitioner. Mr. Gupta submitted that the allegations of mala fide have not been proved by the petitioner. Lastly Mr. Gupta submitted that the flat has since been re allotted in favour of Justice Ajoy Kumar Basu (Retd.). So he should have been made a party to this proceedings. 13. Mr. Gupta’s first point that no writ lies against the Co-operative Societies is of no avail as in the instant case the acts complained of are not of the Co-operative Society but of the Board of Administrators appointed by the Governor of West Bengal under S.26 of the Co-operative Societies Act, after superceding the old management. So any relief granted would be not against the Co-operative Society but against the Administrators and the Registrar of Co-operative Societies who are all Government Officer. Whether or not a writ lies against a Co-operative Society, does not therefore, appear to be relevant at all on the facts and circumstances of this proceedings. 14. So any relief granted would be not against the Co-operative Society but against the Administrators and the Registrar of Co-operative Societies who are all Government Officer. Whether or not a writ lies against a Co-operative Society, does not therefore, appear to be relevant at all on the facts and circumstances of this proceedings. 14. The Board of Administrators are under a statutory obligation to act under the control of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and in fact they have acted as such, by passing the resolution for cancellation of the allotment in favour of the petitioner and re-allotment made in favour of Justice Ajoy Kumar Basu (Retd.). By that they have only carried out the direction and advice of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as given on 2nd of March, 1979 which would appear from the minutes of the meeting held on 10th March, 1979. The enquiry held by the Registrar was pursuant to a statutory authority conferred on the Registrar and relying on such report of the enquiry officer the Registrar advised the Board of Administrators to cancel the allotment in favour of the petitioner. Under S.86 of the Co-operative Societies Act the jurisdiction on the Civil Court is ousted and the disputes are referable to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The act complained of in this case is of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and there are serious allegations of mala fides against him. Hence he cannot be a judge of his own cause as a person who would decide the case should be able to deal with the matter before him objectively, fairly and impartially. So if he is in any way connected with the case he cannot be the judge of his own cause. These principles of natural justice are the essence of all actions and they are clearly applicable to all judicial, quasi judicial and Administrative order. 15. So Mr. Dipankar Gupta’s contention that no writ lies against the Co-operative Societies if accepted then in the facts and circumstances of this particular case, in view of the ouster of the jurisdiction of a Civil Court under the Co-operative Societies Act, the aggrieved litigant would be without any remedies at all, No litigant can be put in such an anomalous position. Dipankar Gupta’s contention that no writ lies against the Co-operative Societies if accepted then in the facts and circumstances of this particular case, in view of the ouster of the jurisdiction of a Civil Court under the Co-operative Societies Act, the aggrieved litigant would be without any remedies at all, No litigant can be put in such an anomalous position. The language of the Article 226 of the Constitution of India is wide enough to enable a High Court to pass any order which justice demands. So far Mr. Gupta’s other contention is concerned. In this case the writ is not sought to be issued against the Co-operative Society to enforce a contractual relationship simpliciter but against the action of the Board of Administrator consisting of Government Officers appointed by the Governor of West Bengal by a Notification. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the Board of Administrator thus appointed are under a statutory obligation to perform statutory duties and functions. Moreover the power of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is of wide amplitude and can be exercised to correct manifest injustice. Mr. Gupta’s point that no contractual relationship simplicitier can be enforced under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not acceptable to me, on the facts and circumstances of this case as the contractual relationship entered into between the petitioner and the Co-operative Society has ripened into a right and/or interest which the Administrator and the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is under an obligation to upheld. Apart from that the contractual relationship that existed by and between the petitioner and the management of the Co-operative Society has become superseded by virtue of the notification made by the Government of West Bengal. In the case reported in AIR 74 Calcutta page 296 it has been held : “Once his legal right to land and also the right to operate and exploit the mines is recognised, he cannot be deprived of such a right without an opportunity of being heard being give to him. Even if the rights were based on a contract, the purported order of revocation must be struck down on the ground of violation of rules of natural justice. Even if the rights were based on a contract, the purported order of revocation must be struck down on the ground of violation of rules of natural justice. The orders of this Court in its writ jurisdiction are long enough to correct injustice wherever it may occur.” In view of the fact that not only the management of the Co-operative Society has been superseded but also the Board of Administrator acting under the direct control of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, agreed to the grant of an allotment of flat in favour of the petitioner, accepted instalments and in fact allotted the flat in favour of the petitioner, which has given the petitioner a valuable right and any revocation of such right in favour of the petitioner amounts to a deprivation of a valuable right which is vested in the petitioner. Once the petitioner have acquired a lawful valuable right he cannot be, unless the violates the rules and regulations of the Societies be deprived of such right without an opportunity of being heard being given to him. In the case reported in AIR 1976 SC page 425 it has been held that : the expensive and extraordinary power of the High Courts under Article 226 is as wide as the amplitude of the language used indicates and so can effect any person even a private individual – and be available for any (other) purpose, even one for which another remedy may exist. The amendment of Art.226 in 1963 inserting Art. 226 (1-A) reiterates the targets of the writ power as inclusive of any person by the expressive reference to the residence of such person. but it is one thing to affirm the jurisdiction another to authorise it’s free exercise like a bull in a china shop. This Court has spelt out wise and clear restraints on the use of this extraordinary remedy and High Courts will not go beyond these wholesome exhibits except where the monstrosity of the situation or other exceptional circumstances cry for timely judicial interdict or mandate. The mentor of law is justice and a potent drug should be judiciously administered. Speaking in critical retrospect and portentous prospect, the writ power has, by and large, been the people’s sentinel on the qut vive and to cut back on or liquidate that power may case a peril to human rights. The mentor of law is justice and a potent drug should be judiciously administered. Speaking in critical retrospect and portentous prospect, the writ power has, by and large, been the people’s sentinel on the qut vive and to cut back on or liquidate that power may case a peril to human rights. We hold that the award here is not beyond the legal reach of Article 226, although this power must be kept in severely judicious leash.” Although the petitioner’s right may have originated from the contractual relationship but at the time when the respondents tried to cancel the allotment a legal right accrued and vested in favour of the petitioner which cannot be taken away arbitrarily mala fide and without any reason. In the case reported in AIR 1973 SC page 205 it has been held; “Where the action of a public authority invested with statuary powers is challenged, the writ petition is maintainable even if the right to relief arises out of an alleged breach of contract. Administrative order affecting property is to be made in a manner which is consonant with the rules of natural justice.” 16. In the case reported in 1976 SC page 2216 a question arose as to whether the remedy to Article 226 is available to enforce a contact qua contract, between the employees of and the Co-operative Society. The question as to whether a Co-operative Society is a public authority came up for consideration and the same point has also been discussed in the cases reported in AIR 1969 Delhi Page 202, AIR 1961 M.P. Page 289 and AIR 1966 Calcutta Page 23. In the Supreme Court case referred to above the said point was left open but in paragraph 12 of his judgment Justice V.K Krishna Iyer held that: “The controversy before us in substance will turn on the construction and scope of the agreement when the claim to a quota as founded cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction without going back on well settle guidelines and even subverting the normal processual law except perhaps in extreme cases which shock the conscience of the Court or other extra ordinary situation, an aspect we are not called upon to explore here. We are aware of the wide amplitude of Art.226 and its potent use to correct manifest injustice but cannot agree that contractual obligations in the ordinary course without even statutory complexion can be enforced by this short, though, wrong cut.” In view of the above observations of the Supreme Court I am of the view that this Court can issue appropriate write against the respondent to do justice to correct manifest injustice. 17. Under S.26(3b) of the Co-operative Societies Act the Administrators are to function subject to the control of the Registrar and under the District control and supervision of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. In the case reported in AIR 1975 Calcutta page 14 in paragraph 19 it has been observed. “It may be that the Committee has not been set up directly by the provision of the statute and it has been set up by the Government in the exercise of its powers under the Act but in my opinion. It maker no difference. It is not disputed that the Committee is to discharge its duly in accordance with the provisions of the statute enacted by the Parliament. The powers which are exercised by the Committee are powers conferred on it by the statute. In my view the test for the application of the writ is whether a body, though set up by the Government is exercise of its power under the statute discharges statutory function or not.” It has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Praga Tools Corporation Vs. C.V. Imanual reported in AIR 1969 SC 1306 that mandamus lies to serve the performance of a public or statutory duty in the performance of which the one who applies for it has a sufficient legal interest. Further it has been observed that it is not necessary that the person or the authority on whom the statutory duty is imposed need be a public official or a official body. Mandamus can issue for instance to an official or a society to compel him to carry out the terms of the statute under order by which the society is constituted or governed. It is therefore, apparent from what has been laid down in the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court that for the purpose of enforcing the performance of statutory duty a writ in the nature of the mandamus will lie. It is therefore, apparent from what has been laid down in the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court that for the purpose of enforcing the performance of statutory duty a writ in the nature of the mandamus will lie. A writ will lie not only for compelling an authority to perform a statutory duty but also for restraining or prohibiting him from doing something which he is not entitle to do under the law. 18. Mr. Gupta’s contention that there has been a violation of Rules 11 and 12 of the Co-operative Societies Rule is not bone out by facts. The notice of termination of allotment and membership speaks of violation of Rule 7(b) where as from the facts it would appear that there has been no such violation. Moreover the question of eligibility of membership was relevant at the time of inclusion of the petitioner as a member once the petitioner has been made a member of the society as he has duly complied with the Rules and Regulations of the Co-operative Societies his membership cannot be cancelled without strictly following the procedure as laid down under the Rules. By perusing the Rules and also from the facts as disclosed in the affidavits it would indicate that the petitioner has not violated Rule 11 of the Co-operative Societies more particularly rule 7(b). Hence there are no grounds whatsoever for cancellation of the petitioner membership. 19. The petitioner temporary absence from India was disclosed in the application from itself wherein the present address of the petitioner in U.S.A. was give. In spite of the said fact having been brought to the notice of the Co-operative Society, the management of the Co-operative Society decided to make the petitioner a member and also accepted considerable amounts of money towards the construction of the said building. After the supersession of the management of the Co-operative Societies by the Board of Administrator the Board acting under the control and supervision of the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, have not only accepted further instalments of money from the petitioner but also allotted the said three bad roomed flat in favour of the petitioner. After the supersession of the management of the Co-operative Societies by the Board of Administrator the Board acting under the control and supervision of the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, have not only accepted further instalments of money from the petitioner but also allotted the said three bad roomed flat in favour of the petitioner. The expulsion from the membership or cessation of membership can only be done under Rules 10, 11 and 12 but that procedure has not been followed by the respondents nor could be by the respondents as the petitioner had not violated any of the said Rules. 20. The allegation of mala fides levelled against the Registrar of Co-operative Societies have not been denied by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies by affirming an affidavit in this proceedings. The affidavit of Haradhan Bhattacharya, an Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies is of no avail as he had no personal knowledge regarding the same. Moreover, there is no positive denial on the allegations of mala fides as made out in this proceeding. Mr. Deb emphasised the fact that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 2nd of March decided on the allotment of the flat in favour of Justice Ajoy Kumar Basu when in fact the Administrator did not take any decision of cancelling the allotment made in favour of the petitioner. The letter of termination of the allotment in favour of the petitioner was sent on 15th March, 1979 so it appears that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies already made up his mind for allotment of the flat in favour of Justice Ajoy Kumar Basu even before the Board could take the decision of cancelling the allotment in favour of the petitioner. According to Mr. Deb this is a glaring instance which would shock the conscience of any court. In the case reported in AIR 1964 SC page 72 it has been held “that charges of mala fide must be dealt with by an affidavit and unless such charges are denied they would be taken to be admitted. Similar view was expressed by the Supreme Court in the case reported in AIR 1964 SC page 962. 21. Mr. In the case reported in AIR 1964 SC page 72 it has been held “that charges of mala fide must be dealt with by an affidavit and unless such charges are denied they would be taken to be admitted. Similar view was expressed by the Supreme Court in the case reported in AIR 1964 SC page 962. 21. Mr. Gupta’s last submission that the new allottee should have been made a party to the proceedings is untenable as at the time when the petitioner moved this application and obtained a Rule such re-allotment made in favour of Justice Ajoy Kumar Basu was not within the knowledge of the petitioner. It is from the affidavit-in-opposition and from the documents annexed thereto it transpired that the Board of Administrator before they could even decide upon canceling the allotment in favour of the petitioner. It was decided by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies that the allotment of the said flat be made in favour of Ajoy Kumar Basu, J. Secondly the impugned order which is being challenged, if set aside any subsequent allotment would also automatically stand cancelled. If the order of cancellation is unwarranted under the law and invalid no new right can flow from that order so the presence of the new allottee is not necessary. The present proceeding for that reason does not suffer from any infirmity or defect. The enquiry held at the instance of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies was behind the back of the petitioner without giving him an opportunity of being heard or rebut the contention as made out in the report. The report contains irrelevant and unfounded statements of facts and suffer from serious infirmity as there has been no violation of Rule 7(b). As a result I make this Rule absolute in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (e) Rule made absolute.