K. M. DAYAL, J. ( 1 ) THE present writ petition has been filed by one Kamla Kant Misra claiming to be a member of a member of a Central Society known as Phulpur- Sahson Sahkar cold Storage Ltd. , Sahson, district Allahabad. The aforesaid society was registered under the U. P. Co-operative Societies act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and had framed its own rules and bye-laws in accordance with the Act. It was being managed by the Committee of Management under the bye-laws-By an order dated 21st December, 1975 passed under sub-secsion (2) of Section 35 of the Act by the Deputy Director. Co-operative Societies, U. P. the Society was suspended and the Tahsildar, Phulpur was appointed as Administrator. The petitioner wants to challenge this order of suspension on various grounds mentioned in paragraph 5 of the writ petition. However, as we do not see any reason why the order was not challenged within a reasonable period, afterit was passed, we are not inclined to interfere in that connection. No. reason has been shown why the order was not ehllenged when it was passed. ( 2 ) THE other question involved in the case is rather important. Many amendments have been made in the bye-jaws in pursuance of an order passed on 17th February, 70 by the Deputy Registrar exercising the powers of the Registrar under the Act, Copy of this order has been filed as anncxure "3 (b)" to the writ petition. The petitioner has challenged those amendments and has pointed out that since the cider dated 17th February, 1970, purported to have been passed under section 131 (4) of the Act and since the existing bye-laws were not inconsistent with the Act or the Rules framed thereunder the Deputy Registrar had no jurisdiction to order any amendment in the bye-laws of the Society. ( 3 ) THE standing counsel seeks to justify the amendments by asserting that they have been made by the Deputy registrar in exercise of the powers conferred on the Regiterer under Section 14 of the Act. In this connection, he has raised on paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit of Sri D. K. Singh dated 24-7-1978. ( 4 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner, however, has in reply referred to Notification No, 3326-C/xii-CA 25 (1)-67. dated july 24, 1969, published in U. P. Gazette, Part I, dated 5th july. 1969, page 2460. In this connection, he has raised on paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit of Sri D. K. Singh dated 24-7-1978. ( 4 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner, however, has in reply referred to Notification No, 3326-C/xii-CA 25 (1)-67. dated july 24, 1969, published in U. P. Gazette, Part I, dated 5th july. 1969, page 2460. In view of clause (2) of this notification the powtrs under Section 14 of the Act cannot be exerecised by a Deputy Registrar or an Asstt. Registrar. The defence, therefore, that the amendments ware made in th3 exercise of the power under Section 14 of the Act cannot be sustained. ( 5 ) THERE is another reason for holding that the impugned amendments could not have been made in exercise of the powers under Section 14 of the Act. Sec. 14 gives its own procedure for exercising the pcwtr, relating to the amendment in the bye-laws. Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the act provides that when the Registrar is of the opinion that any amendment was necessary in the intrest of the Society or public intrest, he may be order in writing issued to the Society by registred post require the society to make the amendment within such time as he may specify in the order. Sub-section (2) provide if the society fails to the make amendment within the time specified, the Registrar may, after giving the society an opportunity of being heard, register such amendments. In the instant case we find that no notice had been issued by the Registrar under sub-section (1 ) of Section 14 of the Act. The standing counsel argued that as the society was supreseeded and the Committee of Managment vested in the Administrator, no such notice was required. According to him, the Administrator himself requested the Register to make amendment by means of a resolution. This argument cannot be accepted. Even when the Committee of Management of a Society is suspended, the General Body of the society remains and there was nothing which prevented the administrator from calling a meeting of the General Body and amend the bye-laws. The bye-laws can be amended by the General Body alone by passing a resolution and not by the Committee of Mangement. Rules 24 and 26 provide the manner in which the bye-laws of a society could be amended. The bye-laws can be amended by the General Body alone by passing a resolution and not by the Committee of Mangement. Rules 24 and 26 provide the manner in which the bye-laws of a society could be amended. Therefore, the argument of he standing counsel that the amendments were valid inpursuance of the resolution passed by the Administrator himself cannot be accepted. ( 6 ) IN the result, the writ petition is partly allowed and the order of the Deputy Registrar dated 17th February, 1970 (Annexure "3 (b)" to the writ petition) is quashed. The amendments made in the bye-laws in pursuance of the aforesaid order are also quashed. The Registrar may take necessary action to hold the election according to law at an early date parties shall bear their own costs. (Petition party allowed.) .