JUDGMENT This is a petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, for setting aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 32 of 1979, confirming the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narasannapeta in Crl.M.P. No. 233 of 1978. The petitioner is the President of the Tallavalasa Co-operative Credit Society in Srikakulam district. The 1st respondent is the Pagodu Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., represented by its President. The 2nd respondent is the State. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this petition are as follows- Under the viability programme, the Divisional Co-operative Officer, Srikakulam, identified Keravanja Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., and passed final orders merging Tallavalasa, Pasivada and Pagodu Co-operative Credit Societies in Karavanja Co-operative Credit Society. The amalgamation was published in the District Gazette dated 24th May, 1977. Thereupon, the three merged Co-operative Credit Societies filed appeals before the District Collector, Srikakulam. Under an order dated 9th July, 1977, the Collector modified the amalgamation by identifying Co-operative Credit Society as viable unit and ordered the merger of the Tallavalasa Co-operative Credit Society in the Pagodu Cooperative Credit Society. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Srikakulam, thereupon nominated a new committee for the newly-formed Pagodu Co-operative Credit Society. The newly-nominated committee obtained a certificate from the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies under sub- section (1), section 117 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, for the records and properties of the society, and filed an application before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narasannapeta, through its President, the 1st respondent, against the President of the Tallavalasa Co-operative Credit Society for causing production of the records of the merged Tallavalasa Co-operative Credit Society. On the day when the petition was taken up for hearing by the Magistrate, the President of the Pagodu Co-operative Credit Society was absent. The Magistrate heard the Advocate for the Tallavalasa Co-operative Credit Society and allowed the petition. He directed the President of the Tallavalasa Co-operative Credit Society to deliver the records to the President of the Pagodu Co-operative Credit Society by the 23rd of May, 1979. The President of the Tallavalasa Co-operative Credit Society preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge and that revision was dismissed. The President of the Tallavalasa Cooperative Credit Society has thereupon come up to this Court with this petition. 3. The President of the Tallavalasa Co-operative Credit Society preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge and that revision was dismissed. The President of the Tallavalasa Cooperative Credit Society has thereupon come up to this Court with this petition. 3. Sri K. Raghavachari, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that the proceedings before the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge are null and void and that their orders are, therefore, liable to be quashed. It is submitted by Sri Raghavachari that, in so far as the Pagodu Co-operative Credit Society is an amalgamated society and its committee is nominated by the Deputy Registrar under section 15-A of the Act, no application under section 117 of the Old Act before the Magistrate can be filed. The learned Counsel for the 1st respondent, Sri A. Suryanarayana, contends that’ this objection was not raised by the petitioner either before the Magistrate or before the Sessions Judge and that, therefore, it would not be open to him to raise that objection at this late stage before the High Court. It is further argued by the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent that there is now an elected committee for the amalgamated Pagodu Co-operative Credit Society and that, therefore, the orders of the Courts below directing the petitioner to deliver the records to the President of the Pagodu Co-operative Credit Society do not call for any interference. The certificate issued by the Deputy Registrar under section 117(1) clearly shows that he issued the certificate in favour of the nominated committee of the Pagodu Co-operative Credit Society. Section 117(1) prior to its being amended by the Andhra Pradesh Act XXVIII of 1978, was as follows- “117. Delivery of possession of records and properties of a society. The certificate issued by the Deputy Registrar under section 117(1) clearly shows that he issued the certificate in favour of the nominated committee of the Pagodu Co-operative Credit Society. Section 117(1) prior to its being amended by the Andhra Pradesh Act XXVIII of 1978, was as follows- “117. Delivery of possession of records and properties of a society. — (1) Where a new committee is elected, or a person is appointed under section 32 , or the Committee is superseded by the Registrar, and a special officer or managing committee is appointed under section 34 , or where the society is ordered to be wound up and a liquidator is appointed under section 65, and such new committee, person, special officer, managing committee or liquidator is resisted in or prevented from obtaining possession of the books, accounts, documents, securities, cash and other properties, whether movable or immovable, of the society (hereinafter in this section referred to as the records and properties of the society) by the previous committee or superseded committee or by the society which has been ordered to be wound up or by any person who is not entitled to be in possession of the records and properties of the society, any Magistrate of the First Class in whose jurisdiction the office of the society or the records and properties of that society is or are situated shall, an application by the new committee, person, special officer, managing committee or liquidator and on production of a certificate from the Registrar in the prescribed form setting forth the reasons therefor, direct delivery to the new committee, person, special officer, managing committee or liquidator of the possession of the records and properties of the society. An application under the old section 117 can be filed only by the authorities specifically mentioned in that section. The nominated committee of the Pagodu Co-operative Credit Society is admittedly not an elected committee nor is it a managing committee appointed under section 34 of the Act. It is a committee nominated under section 15-A of the Act, which has been added by the Amending Act VI of 1977. The nominated committee of the Pagodu Co-operative Credit Society is admittedly not an elected committee nor is it a managing committee appointed under section 34 of the Act. It is a committee nominated under section 15-A of the Act, which has been added by the Amending Act VI of 1977. The new section 117(1) , as amended in 1978, specifically provides for an application to be filed under the section by a newly elected committee or a committee nominated or a person appointed by the Registrar under section 15-A or a person, special officer, managing committee or liquidator, appointed under sections 32 , 34 and 65 of the Act. It is clear from a reading of the two sections that an application by a committee or a person nominated under section 15-A(3)(vi) of the Act can be filed only under the amended section 117(1) and not under the old section 117(1). That being so the application can be filed only before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and not before a Magistrate. The instant application filed by the nominated committee before the Magistrate is therefore unsustainable and the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to deal with it. 4. No doubt, as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent, the objection was not raised before the Magistrate nor before, the Sessions Judge; but when the objection is a valid objection against the very jurisdiction of the authority which passed the order, the High Court need not refuse to set aside the order which is void ab initio. Wholly illegal orders of authorities which do not have jurisdiction at all cannot be allowed to stand as if they are legally valid orders merely because the illegality was not pointed out earlier, though there was opportunity for the same being pointed out. What is wholly illegal cannot become legal merely by lapse of time and it is in such cases that the High Court exercises its inherent jurisdiction to set aside the illegal orders. 5. Under the circumstances, it cannot but be held that the order passed by the Magistrate is illegal and the same ought not to have been confirmed by the Sessions Judge. The orders of both the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge are therefore quashed and this petition is allowed. G.S.M.----- Writ petition allowed; Order quashed.