N. H. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THE Government has not filed any affidavit in this case. But the respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit and to it is annexed one document showing that the State. Government had already moved for the withdrawal of the criminal case which stood withdrawn with recording of acquittal of the accused on 2-8-1978. ( 2 ) MR. R. N. Shah the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner firstly urged that once the power under sec. 155 of the Gujarat Co-ope- rative Societies Act had been exercised by the Additional Commissioner of Cooperative Societies the State Government was denuded of any powers under the said section because the Additional Commissioner was acting as a delegate of the Government and powers once exercised by the delegate could not be re-exercised in principle. I asked Mr. Shah for the petitioner as to whether he had any authority or any order of the Government to show that the Additional Commissioner of Cooperative Societies was functioning as the delegate of the Government. Mr. C. K. Tackwani the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State orally declared that the Additional Commissioner who was also Joint Registrar of the Cooperative Societies had exercised powers under sec. 155 of the Act in his capacity as the Registrar as the order ex facie shows. The said order was made available to me and it showed that Mr. T. Chellam the IAS Officer had passed the said order in his capacity as the Additional Registrar and also as the Additional Commissioner Cooperation under the provisions of Act. There is no post of an Addi- tional Commissioner of Cooperation under the Act but Government it seems for its administrative purposes has appointed certain officers to look after the affairs of Cooperation. The petitioner if my view has failed to show that Mr. T. Chellam had exercised his revisional powers in the Revision Application No. 356 of 1977 as the delegate of the Government. The order itself does not speak of any such delegation. ( 3 ) MR. Shah for the petitioner then alternatively urged that the powers of the Government and the powers of the Registrar under sec. 155 of the Act are co-extensive and once the powers are exercised by the Registrar or the Joint Registrar the State Government cannot exercise such powers. The language of sec. ( 3 ) MR. Shah for the petitioner then alternatively urged that the powers of the Government and the powers of the Registrar under sec. 155 of the Act are co-extensive and once the powers are exercised by the Registrar or the Joint Registrar the State Government cannot exercise such powers. The language of sec. 155 of the Act does not support this reasoning. It gives power of revision to the Registrar as well as to the Government. The Registrar exercises powers of revision against the order of his subordinates and the Government is invested fifth the powers of revision against the order of its subordinates. The Jt. Registrar is obviously an officer subordinate to the Government and so there is nothing in sec. 155 of the Act itself to show that the Government cannot exercise powers under sec. 155 of the Act against the Jt. Registrars orders after the powers are exercised by the Jt. Registrar. Mr. Tackwani in this connection had invited my attention to the judgment of this High Court in the case of Maganlal Lalbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and Others reported in 19 G. L. R. 1978 Page 1141. It is the. case arising under the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayat Act but the principle laid down in that case squarely applies to the present case. What the learned Judge says about sec. 294 (5) of the Gujarat Panchayat Act in my view should apply to a provision which in in pari materia with that provision. The headed Single Judge in this connection observes as follows: once the State Government authorises a particular officer the power conferred under sub-sec. (5) of sec. 294 belongs to that officer. When such an officer exercises power under sub-sec (5) of sec. 294 it is within the competences of the State Government to revise his order under sub-sec. (5 ). ( 4 ) MR. Shah for the Petitioner urged that the mala fides attributed to the Minister-in-charge of Cooperation at the relevant time have stood undenied. Mr. When such an officer exercises power under sub-sec (5) of sec. 294 it is within the competences of the State Government to revise his order under sub-sec. (5 ). ( 4 ) MR. Shah for the Petitioner urged that the mala fides attributed to the Minister-in-charge of Cooperation at the relevant time have stood undenied. Mr. Tackwani in this connection submitted that as Shri Rasikial Acharya is no longer there in office it is difficult for the Government to affirm or deny the allegations but he has made available for my perusal the original file and I find that there was an able ate order passed by the then Minister-in-Charge of Cooperation Shri Rasiklal Acharya and it appeared ex-facie from the order set not in detail on the file that the Minister-in-Charge had interpreted the legal provisions and passed the order. Mr. Shah had in this connection urged that sec. 71 of the Act prohibits the Society from investing its under in a manner other than provided in that section. Rut the then Ministers order on the Government file showed that the Government had treated this as a case not of invest- ment but of spending for the purchase of the properly for the purposes of the Society. Ex-facie the order of the Government appears to be right because sec. 71 from its very nature of the text is confined to invest- ment of the surplus funds of the Society so that cash does not remain on hand with the chances of its being channeled to other unlawful sources. ( 5 ) IN view of the matter 1 find little merit in this petition which stands rejected. Rule discharged with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .