JUDGMENT Lalit Mohan Sharma, J. By this writ application the petitioners have challenged the order of the Minister, Co-operation, (respondent no. 2), as contained in Annexure-1 passed under section 65-A of the Bihar & Orissa Co-operative Societies Act {hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. A dispute arose between the petitioners' on the one hand and the respondent no. 6 on the other relating to the election of Lakhanpur Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society. The respondent no. 6 asserted that an election was duly held on 9.6.1980 and he was elected as Chairman of the managing committee. The petitioners disputed the holding of any meeting on that date and the election was challenged. The applications were filed before the Deputy Registrar (respondent no. 3) exercising the power under section 48 of the Act and two cases as Election Case No. 17 and 20 of 1980 were registered. By the order (Annexure-2) dt. 31st December, 1980, the respondent no. 3 accepted the petitioner's case and decided the dispute in his favour holding that no meeting or election was held as claimed by the respondent no. 6. The respondent no. 6 moved the Minister, Co-operation (Respondent no. 2) under section 65-A against this order. The petitioners after receiving notice appeared and challenged his jurisdiction. The respondent no. 2, however, did not deal with the objection in regard to his power but allowed the application of the respondent no. 6 on 22.4.1981 by his order Annexure-1). 3. Mr. Bose appearing in support of the writ application has contended that the power under section 65-A of the Act can be exercised only where it matter, is pending, and not where it is finally disposed of. Since the dispute was finally settled by the respondent no. 3, the respondent no. 2 had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order in Annexure-2. He has relied upon the decision in Ahyiya Chak Fishermen Co-operative Society and others Vs. Sidheshwar Kewat and others C.W.J.C No. 2411 of 1981 dated 28.9.1981, Hare Krishna Upadhya Vs. The State of Bihar & others 1979 B.B.C.J. 109, and Din Dayal Singh Vs. The Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union Ltd. A.I.R. 1976 Pat 179. 4. Mr. Pawan Kumar, Junior counsel to the Advocate General, appearing for respondents 1 to 4 has contended that the jurisdiction under sec. 65-A is not confined only to pending matters. 5. The State of Bihar & others 1979 B.B.C.J. 109, and Din Dayal Singh Vs. The Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union Ltd. A.I.R. 1976 Pat 179. 4. Mr. Pawan Kumar, Junior counsel to the Advocate General, appearing for respondents 1 to 4 has contended that the jurisdiction under sec. 65-A is not confined only to pending matters. 5. The Section which is attempted to the .differently construed by the learned counsel before me in the following terms: Sec. 55-A- The power of the State Government to review the order of the Registrar. Notwithstanding any thing to the contrary contained in this Act, the State Government may, of its own motion or on an application made to it by any party aggrieved by the construction or re-construction, amalgamation, election supersession, liquidation or any other matter concerning working of the society call for Act or proceedings of any matter pending before the Registrar or his subordinate or any person acting under his authority and examine and pass such orders as it may deem fit. 6. It is argued by Mr. Pawan Kumar that the expression "pending before the Registrar" is referable to "proceedings of any matter" and not to the earlier words in tile section including "amalgamation" etc. In election matters the State Government can revise even final orders passed by the Registrar in election proceeding disputes. I have examined the language of the section independently as also with the learned counsel and I do not find any reason to hold that the expression "pending before the Registrar" must be confined to the latter portion of the section only. To me it appears that it governs the entire section and therefore the State Government can exercise his power under the section only if a matter is pending. If a dispute has been finally considered and decided the section will have no application. 7. In the case of Ahiyachak Fisherman Co-operative Society and others, C.W.J.C No. 2411 of 1981 dated 28.9.1981. It was not necessary to decide the point arising before me, still some of ,he observations made in the judgment lend support to my view. In that case no question had ever gone before the Registrar and the party approaching the Minister, Cooperation had come direct. In paragraph 7 of the judgment it was observed as follows: "In my considered opinion, therefore, the power under sec. In that case no question had ever gone before the Registrar and the party approaching the Minister, Cooperation had come direct. In paragraph 7 of the judgment it was observed as follows: "In my considered opinion, therefore, the power under sec. 65-A of the State Government can be exercised only in relation to any matter which might be pending before the Registrar or his subordinate or any person acting under his authority and, once such a power is exercised, the State Government has got a coordinate and concurrent jurisdiction to examine the matter and pass such orders as it may think fit and proper." 8. The other case reported in 1979 B.B.C.J. 109 also did not decide the present controversy. It was the negative case in which the petitioners challenged before the High Court, an order passed under Sec. 65-A in a pending matter which was upheld. However, in para graph 8 of the judgment the Bench took note of the argument addressed on behalf of the respondents that "the power under Sec. 65-A cannot be exercised after the final order has been passed under sec. 48 of the Act, but it could be exercised while the proceeding is pending before the Registrar". While rejecting an argument pressed on behalf of the petitioners and referred to in paragraph 11 of the judgment the Bench further held in paragraph 12 as follows: "In so far as the instant case is concerned Mr. Narayan's argument overlooks a basic fact that the authority under Sec.65-A has not revised any final order of the Registrar. What seems to have been done is that the election dispute pending before the Registrar has been recalled from his file by Respondent no. 2 and disposed of". The above observations though not concluding the point before me, support the view I have taken. 9. Mr. Pawan Kumar next urged that as on the finding of the Deputy Registrar (respondent no. 3) no election had taken place On 9.6.1980 and an election therefore has to be held in future hereafter, the matter may be considered to be pending. Whatever happens in future in relation to a fresh election, this much is clear that so far the order in Annexure-2 disposing of the two election Cases is concerned is final. The claim of respondent no.6 was finally disposed of against him. Whatever happens in future in relation to a fresh election, this much is clear that so far the order in Annexure-2 disposing of the two election Cases is concerned is final. The claim of respondent no.6 was finally disposed of against him. The opening, sentence in Annexure-I indicates that the respondent no. 2 was entertaining the application of the respondent no. 6 against this order, he has by the impugned order set aside the adjudication arrived at in Annexure-2. I am afraid that in these circumstances the writ application cannot be defeated on the ground suggested on behalf of the respondents. 10. For the reasons mentioned above, the order in Annexure-1 is quashed and the writ application is accordingly allowed but without costs. Application allowed.