JUDGMENT B. N. Sapru, J. - The petitioner was appointed as a Co-operative Supervisor and joined service on 28-7-1960 in the U.P. Cooperative Union Limited, Lucknow, generally known as Provincial Co-operative Union. This Union is an apex society. 2. The petitioners services were terminated by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, by an order dated 23-11-1977 which was served on him on 29-11-1977. The order stated that the Petitioner's services were terminated with immediate effect and in lieu of the notice, he shall be paid three months salary. The District Assistant Registrar, Etawah, was directed to give three months salary to the applicant along with the service of the aforesaid order dated 23-11-1977. A copy of the said notice has been filed as Annexure I to the writ petition. 3. The petitioner prays that this notice be quashed and a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents not to interfere with the working of the petitioner as Co-operative Supervisor, Muradganj, District Etawah, and to treat him as continuing in service. It has also been prayed that any other writ, order or direction be issued which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 4. The case set out in the writ petition is that the petitioner was an employee of the U.P. Co-operative Union Limited and that acting under the provisions of Section 123 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the State Government, by its notification No. C-26/2-12-C-76 dated 13-2-1976 published in U.P. Gazette dated 6-3-1976, recognised the U.P. Co-operative Union Limited as Cooperative Federal Authority for all the Primary Agricultural Credit Societies (wherein Central Banks are included), Cooperative Unions and Marketing Societies. It is further the case of the petitioner that the Co-operative Federal Authority, under the provisions of Section 122 of the Act, has framed regulations known as the Cooperative Federal Authority (Business) Regulations, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as the Business Regulations) for Cooperative Supervisors and Kamdars which were approved by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.P., by an order No. 3380/Vidhi/222 on 23-4-1976. It is the case of the petitioner that, after the recognition of the Federal Authority and after the framing of the Business Regulations, the Petitioner's services as Cooperative Supervisor were governed by the service conditions given in the Business Regulations and the provisions of the Act. It is the case of the petitioner that, after the recognition of the Federal Authority and after the framing of the Business Regulations, the Petitioner's services as Cooperative Supervisor were governed by the service conditions given in the Business Regulations and the provisions of the Act. The petitioner further averred that he was a confirmed employee. The Petitioner's case in the writ petition was that as the conditions of his services were governed by the statutory provisions and, under the law, the petitioner could not be removed from service without being given an opportunity of hearing. It is also the case of the petitioner that the services of a permanent employee could not be terminated except by way of punishment. The petitioner added in the writ petition that his services could not be terminated under the Business Regulations and further that the petitioner was senior to several other persons who were juniors to him in service whose services had been retained. It is contended that if there was a retrenchment, the junior most staff had to be retrenched. It is then asserted that there were 7000 Cooperative Supervisors employed in the Federal Authority and the Petitioner's number in the gradation list was 4301. 5. An application for amendment of the writ petition was filed which was allowed by which certain grounds were added. It was urged that the notification dated 13-2-1976 and the subsequent notification dated 9-9-1976 by which the previous notification dated 13-2-1976 was amended, were illegal inasmuch as under Section 123 of the Act the State Government acquired no power for providing about the recruitment, appointments, emoluments, removal etc. of the employee. .The jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar to make the impugned order was also challenged being ultra vires the Section 123 of the Act. It was then urged that since there was no duly constituted Regional Committee which alone was competent to pass orders and in the absence of the Regional Committee the Deputy Registrar acquired no power or jurisdiction to make the impugned order. 6. A counter-affidavit was filed in which it was pleaded, briefly, that the petitioner was not a permanent employee of the U.P. Co-operative Union Limited or the Cooperative Federal Authority. It was further asserted that, under the Regulation 24 of the Business Regulations, the services of a temporary employee could be terminated by one months notice or pay in lieu thereof. A counter-affidavit was filed in which it was pleaded, briefly, that the petitioner was not a permanent employee of the U.P. Co-operative Union Limited or the Cooperative Federal Authority. It was further asserted that, under the Regulation 24 of the Business Regulations, the services of a temporary employee could be terminated by one months notice or pay in lieu thereof. It was asserted that the petitioner had an alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 70 of the Act as also under the Business Regulations. 7. A rejoinder affidavit was filed in which the petitioner reasserted his case that he was a permanent., employee. He has annexed a copy of an order dated 24-7-1977 signed by Sri N. A. Vishwanathan, Additional Registrar (Development), Sahkari Samiti, U.P., who is the Chairman of the Authority, Administrative Committee of the Co-operative Federal Authority, and issued from the Headquarters of the U.P. Cooperative Union Limited, as Annexure RA I to the rejoinder affidavit, which shows that the petitioner is a permanent employee and his old gradation number was 4301-T and the present number is 3926-T. 8. At the hearing Sri D. P. S. Chauhan appearing for the petitioner tried to argue that the petitioner continued to be an employee of the U.P. Co-operative Union Limited and not of the Co-operative Federal Authority and as such the Deputy Registrar had no authority to terminate his services. But subsequently in the course of his argument he gave up this line of attack and had argued the case on the footing that the petitioner was an employee of the Cooperative Federal Authority. 9. In view of the Annexure 1 to the rejoinder affidavit it is clear that the petitioner was a permanent employee of the establishment and the plea ' of the respondents that the petitioner was a temporary employee and that his services could be retrenched under Regulation 24 of the Business Regulations, is untenable. 10. S. 123 of the Act runs as follows : "123. 10. S. 123 of the Act runs as follows : "123. Constitution or recognition of cooperative federal authority to supervise working of co-operative societies : - (1) The State Government may constitute or recognise one or more co-operative federal authorities, in such manner as may be prescribed and subject to such conditions as the State Government may impose, for the supervision of co-operative societies or a class of co-operative societies and may grant loans or subsidies to such authority or authorities in the manner prescribed. (2) The State Government, may, by general or special order, require a cooperative society or a class of co-operative societies to make contribution of such a sum every year as may be fixed by the Registrar, towards the full or partial recoupment of expenditure incurred or likely to be incurred in respect of supervision of societies by the federal authority or authorities mentioned in sub-section (1). (3) A co-operative society to which subsection (2) is applicable shall pay to such authority or authorities within such time as may be fixed by the Registrar, the contribution as may be fixed under that subsection, and if it fails to make such payment within such time, the amount shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue on a requisition made by the authority or authorities through the Registrar to the collector of the district in which the registered office of the defaulting cooperative society is situate. (4) Any officer or officers of the federal authority or authorities mentioned in subsection (1) may be authorised by the Registrar by general or special order in writing to conduct inspection of a cooperative society or class of co-operative societies, the supervision of which has been entrusted to the federal authority or authorities under sub-section (1), provided that such officer or officers shall work under the general guidance, superintendence and control of the Registrar in exercise of such powers and report the result of inspection to the Registrar." S. 124 of the Act runs as follows : - "124. Registrar and other officers to be public servants. Registrar and other officers to be public servants. The Registrar or any person appointed, or authorised to conduct audit under Section 64 or to hold enquiry under Section 65 or to make inspection under Section 66, or authorised under Section 123 to conduct inspection, an arbitrator or a member of the board of arbitrators to whom any dispute is referred under section 71, or a member of the Tribunal or a liquidator, or any person authorised by the Registrar under Section 93 to make attachment and sale, shall be deemed to be public servant within the meaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code ( Act XLV of I860)." 11. As mentioned earlier, under the Notification No. C-26/2-12-C-76 dated 13-2-1976 published in the U.P. Gazette dated 6-3-1976, the U.P. Co-operative Union Limited was recognised as a Federal Authority for all Primary Agricultural Credit Societies (wherein Central Banks are included), Co-operative Unions and Marketing Societies. The notification is reproduced below : - "Notification No. C-26/2-12-C-76 dated 13-2-1976 published in U.P. Gazette dated 6th March, 1976, at p. 663." In compliance of Section 123(1) of U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, U.P. Act It of 1965, read with Rule 390 (b) to) of U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1965, the Governor is pleased to recognise U.P. Co-operative Union Limited (P.C.U.) as Cooperative Federal Authority for ail the Primary Agricultural Credit Societies (wherein Central Banks are included), Cooperative Unions and marketing Societies. 2. The aforesaid Co-operative Federal Authority shall have the right of appointment, transfer, disciplinary action and removal in respect of supervisors for the supervision of primary Agricultural Credit Societies, Secretaries for the working of Cooperative Unions, Accountants and Storekeepers for working in the Marketing Societies. 3 (i). At the Regional level there shall be an Authority Administrative Committee of Co-operative Federal Authority for the working which shall be constituted as under: (1) Additional Registrar (Administration), Co-operative Societies, U.P. ......Chairman (2) Two Directors nominated by the Committee of Management of U.P. Cooperative Union Limited (CU) Member (3) Secretary, U.P. Co-operative Bank Limited, Lucknow. .......Member (4) Secretary, U.P. Co-operative Union Limited (P.C.U.) Member/Secretary (ii) This Committee shall be responsible for the recruitment, training, hearing of appeals of Co-operative Supervisors and Kamdars and for laying down the policy for general administration of the Co-operative Supervisors and Kamdars. .......Member (4) Secretary, U.P. Co-operative Union Limited (P.C.U.) Member/Secretary (ii) This Committee shall be responsible for the recruitment, training, hearing of appeals of Co-operative Supervisors and Kamdars and for laying down the policy for general administration of the Co-operative Supervisors and Kamdars. (iii) The Secretary, U.P. Co-operative Union Limited shall also be the Member/Secretary of Authority `Administrative Committee' who shall be the Chief Executive Officer. He shall be the officer of the Co-operative Department and shall not be the officer of the rank lower than the level of Deputy Registrar. (iv) Co-operative Federal Authority shall appoint one Additional Secretary for assisting Member/Secretary. He shall be the Officer of the Co-operative Department and shall not be of rank lower than the level of Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies of the Department. 4. At the regional level the right of appointment in respect of Co-operative Supervisors and Kamdars recruited and trained by the Authority Administrative Committee shall be with the Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies of the region who shall be responsible for making transfers within the region and for the quick disposal of all matters relating to service of the Supervisors and Kamdars in the capacity of appointing authority. 5 (i). At the district level there shall be a District Committee for the efficient administrative control of Co-operative Supervisors and Kamdars of which following shall be the members : (1) District Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies. ....Chairman (2) District Superintendent, U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. Member (3) Secretary, District Co-operative Bank Limited. Member/Secretary. (ii) This Committee shall have the right to transfer Supervisors and Kamdars within the District, to maintain their character roll and for which it shall also be responsible. This Committee shall also have the right for suspending the Supervisors and Kamdars. 6. The members of the Committee at State level, Regional level and at District Level shall be ex-officio and honorary. 7. The Chairman and members of the Committee of Co-operative Federal Authority constituted at various levels shall cease to remain the members of the said Committees on not remaining in their office and their places shall be occupied by the persons appointed or elected in their places. 8. The office of the State level Authority Administrative Committee shall be at Lucknow and the office of the District Level, District Committee shall be at the Headquarters of the district. 9. 8. The office of the State level Authority Administrative Committee shall be at Lucknow and the office of the District Level, District Committee shall be at the Headquarters of the district. 9. The Co-operative Federal Authority shall frame detailed rules for the working at all levels which shall be effective after approval from the Registrar. 10. The Co-operative Federal Authority shall start functioning from the date of issue of this notification." 12. The aforesaid notification was amended by the Notification No. 3735-C-2-12-C-115-76 dated 9-9-1976 published in the U.P. Gazette dated 26-9-1976 at p. 3179. The relevant parts of the Notification are extracted below : - "3 (a) (1). At the State level there shall be a State level Authority Committee of the Co-operative Federal Authority for laying down the policy which shall be constituted as under : (1) Chairman, U.P. Co-operative Union Limited, Lucknow (PCU). ....Chairman (2) One Additional Registrar/Chairman, Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U.P., Lucknow nominated by the Registrar. ......Member (3) Two Directors nominated by the Committee of Management of U.P. Cooperative Union Limited (PCU). ......Director-Member (4) Chairman, U.P. Co-operative Bank Limited, Lucknow............ Member (5) Chairman, U.P. Co-operative Federation Limited, Lucknow,................. Member (6) Secretary/Managing Director, U.P. Co-operative Bank Limited, Lucknow. .....Member (7) Secretary/Managing Director, U.P. Co-operative Federation Limited, Lucknow. .....Member (8) Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Banking), U.P., Lucknow. .....Member (9) Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Marketing), U.P., Lucknow. ......Member (10) Agriculture Officer, Co-operative, U.P. Lucknow. .......Member (11) One Chairman of District/Central Co-operative Bank nominated by the Registrar. .....Member (12) Secretary/Managing Director, U.P. Co-operative Union Limited, Lucknow (PCU). ......Member/Secretary 3 (a) (2). This Committee shall be responsible for the recruitment, training of Co-operative Supervisors and Kamdars and for laying down the policy with the approval of the Registrar relating to taking of the contributions from the concerned societies for their keeping. This Committee shall be responsible for making arrangement for the recruitment and training of Co-operative Supervisors arid Kamdars, hearing appeals according to the provisions of rules, disposal of all the administrative and service matters and for their transfers outside the region. 3 (b) (2). At the regional level there shall be a Regional level Administrative Committee for carrying out the working which shall be constituted as under : (1) Additional Registrar/Joint Registrar, U.P. Co-operative Societies, Lucknow nominated by the Registrar-Chairman. 3 (b) (2). At the regional level there shall be a Regional level Administrative Committee for carrying out the working which shall be constituted as under : (1) Additional Registrar/Joint Registrar, U.P. Co-operative Societies, Lucknow nominated by the Registrar-Chairman. (2) One Director out of the two Directors of U, P. Co-operative Union in the State Level Authority, Committee nominated by the said Committee. .....Member (3) Secretary, U.P. Co-operative Union Limited Lucknow Member/Secretary 3 (b) (3). Secretary, U.P. Co-operative Union shall also be the Member/Secretary of State level Authority and of State level Administrative Committee who shall be the Chief Executive Officer thereof. He shall be the officer of the Co-operative Department and shall not be the officer of the rank lower than the level of Deputy Registrar. 4(1). At the regional level the right of appointment in respect of Co-operative Supervisors and Kamdars, recruited and trained by the State level Administrative Committee shall be with the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies of the Region who shall be responsible within the Region for making transfers within the region and for the quick disposal of all matters relating to service of Co-operative Supervisors and Kamdars in the capacity of appointing authority except the matters relating to transfers within the region. All the matters above mentioned shall be disposed of by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies of the Region according to the decision of the Regional Committee constituted as hereunder : 1. Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U.P. of the Region. ......Chairman 2. Two Directors nominated by the Committee of Management of each District Co-operative Bank by rotation in alphabetical order, only for one year. .......Member 3. Two District Assistant Registrars nominated by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies of the Region from the two Districts by rotation in alphabetical order who shall be from the districts different from the Districts from where the District Co-operative Banks have nominated representatives. ......Member" 13. The Federal Authority under clause 9 of the Notification dated 6-3-1976 has framed the U.P. Co-operative Federal Authority (Business) Regulations, 1976. These Business Regulations have been approved by the Registrar. ......Member" 13. The Federal Authority under clause 9 of the Notification dated 6-3-1976 has framed the U.P. Co-operative Federal Authority (Business) Regulations, 1976. These Business Regulations have been approved by the Registrar. The preamble of the Business Regulations runs as follows : - "Whereas the U.P. Government has vide Co-operative-2 Department notification No. C/26/2-12-C-76 dated February 13, 1976 recognised the U.P. Co-operative Union Ltd., Lucknow as the Co-operative Federal Authority for the Co-operative Supervisors and Kamdars appointed for supervision of the Co-operative Societies which fall within its purview. And whereas the U.P. Government has directed the said Co-operative Federal Authority to frame regulations governing its business vide para 9 of the said notification. Now, therefore, the following Regulations are framed which have been approved by the Committee of Management of the U.P. Co-operative Union Ltd., Lucknow vide their resolution No. 11 (2) dated April 3, 1976 and by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U. P vide his order No. 3380/Vidhi-222 dated April 23, 1976". 14. The Business Regulations are divided into two parts - (i) the working regulations and (ii) the service regulations. In the definition clause, authority' means the U.P. Co-operative Union Limited, Lucknow, recognised as "Co-operative Federal Authority" under S. 123(1) of the Act. Para 8 contains the service regulations. Regulation 15 provides that the Authority shall maintain the categories and number of posts as per Annexure I provided that the `Administrative Committee' shall have the power to modify it from time to time. Annexure I discloses that in category 1 (a) there is a strength of 2912 Supervisors and in category 1 (b) there is a strength of 583 Supervisors. Besides it, there are two categories of Kamdars having 729 and 752 posts. Regulation 23 permits a temporary appointment for a period not more than six months. Regulation 24 which is relevant. Provides for termination of temporary employees. The relevant part of it runs as follows- "24. Termination. - Services of a staff member shall be terminated with effect from the following dates. (1) In case of a temporary staff member, on one month's notice in writing on either side, or in lieu-thereof by payment of one month's salary by the party which gives notice. Provided that a notice given by a staff member shall be deemed to be proper only if he remains on duty during the period of notice. (1) In case of a temporary staff member, on one month's notice in writing on either side, or in lieu-thereof by payment of one month's salary by the party which gives notice. Provided that a notice given by a staff member shall be deemed to be proper only if he remains on duty during the period of notice. Provided further that in case of direct appointments made for a specific period, it shall not be necessary to give any notice or any pay in lieu thereof. (2) It is also provided that the appointing authority, if he likes, may accord permission to the staff members for resigning the post without requiring them under sub regulation (1) for making payment of any amount in lieu of notice or without notice or accept notice for shorter period. Provided further that the notice given under sub-section (1) by any such staff member against whom disciplinary proceedings are either pending or contemplated shall be effective only when it is accepted by the appointing authority but in case of contemplated disciplinary proceedings the information of non-acceptance of notice shall be given to the concerned staff member before the expiry of the period of notice." 15. Regulation 24-A provides for automatic termination of service. Chapter IV of the Business Regulations deals with the conduct and discipline, penalties and disciplinary proceedings. It provides for penalties which may be imposed on a staff member as under : - "(a)-(b)....... (c) imposition of fine up to a maximum of Rs. 100/- to compensate in whole or in part for any pecuniary loss caused to the Authority or the Co-operative Society concerned on account of negligence or breach of orders, (e) reduction to a lower category or pay-scale or to a lower stage in a time-scale. (f) removal from service, which does not disqualify for future employment, and (g) dismissal from service, which disqualifies for future employment." 16. The penalties mentioned in subclauses (a) (b), (c) and (d) are called minor penalties and it is provided that they may be imposed by the District Committee and those mentioned in sub-clauses (e), (f) and (g), which are major penalties, shall be imposed by the appointing authority. 17. The penalties mentioned in subclauses (a) (b), (c) and (d) are called minor penalties and it is provided that they may be imposed by the District Committee and those mentioned in sub-clauses (e), (f) and (g), which are major penalties, shall be imposed by the appointing authority. 17. For the method to be adopted when a major penalty has to be imposed particularly speaking, a charge has to be framed, the officer concerned has to be informed of the charge and is given an opportunity to defend himself before the imposition of a major penalty on him. Sub clause (4) of Regulation 68 provides that the regulation shall also not apply where it is proposed to terminate the employment of either a temporary staff member or of a probationer whether during or at the end of the period of probation. 18. Sri D. P. S. Chauhan appearing on behalf of the petitioner has urged that the impugned order is bad. He urges that under clause (1) of Para 4 of the amended Notification the powers to terminate the services of a Supervisor are vested in the Regional Committee and the Deputy Registrar can only dispose of a matter in accordance with the decision of the Regional Committee. It is nobody's case that any such decision has been taken by the Regional Committee. The aforesaid sub clause (1) of para 4 of the amended Notification has been reproduced earlier. From the perusal of the order it is clear that the Appointing Authority at the regional level is the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and for the disposal of all matters relating to Supervisors and Kamdars in his capacity as appointing authority except the matters relating to transfers. He shall decide in accordance with the decision of the Regional Committee constituted under that clause. As there was no decision of the Regional Committee, the order would be bad. 19. In reply, Sri Triloki Nath has urged that according to the petitioner, in his supplementary rejoinder affidavit filed on 5-10-1978 along with the amendment application, no Regional Committee as laid down, has been constituted and as such the Deputy Registrar had not passed the impugned order in pursuance of the decision of the Regional Committee. He submits that in the absence of the Regional Committee, the Deputy Registrar has per force to act on his own. 20. He submits that in the absence of the Regional Committee, the Deputy Registrar has per force to act on his own. 20. The answer of Sri D. P. S. Chauhan to this argument is that the ground sought to be added was as follows : - "Because there was no duly constituted Regional Committee which alone was competent to pass orders and in the absence of the Regional Committee the Deputy Registrar acquires no power or jurisdiction to pass the impugned order." 21. He submits that what the petitioner meant was that the Committee which had, in fact, been constituted, was not properly constituted. At the Bar, he stated that because the Central Banks had been superseded, and because the representatives appointed by the Registrar were not duly elected, the Committee was not duly constituted. In the circumstances, we are not prepared to hold that no Committee had been constituted and, therefore, the Registrar had to act on his own without waiting for the decision of the Committee. We find that there was a Regional Committee in existence and the Deputy Registrar could not act without any decision being taken by the Committee. The order would, therefore, be bad for violating clause 4 (1) of the amended Notification. 22. We have already found that the petitioner was permanent employee and it is admitted in the counter-affidavit that the Business Regulations applied to him. He was, thus, an employee of the Co-operative Federal Authority. 23. Regulation 24 of the Business Regulations has been quoted 'above. It does not apply to a permanent employee and as such his services could not be terminated under that regulation. 24. Admittedly, the Deputy Registrar treated the petitioner as a temporary employee and without following the procedure prescribed in Regulation 68 (1) of the Business Regulations the petitioners services were terminated. Therefore, if the termination of the Petitioner's service is treated as major punishment, that provision has also not been complied with. In the circumstances, the order of termination would be bad on the ground that it has been made in violation of the provisions of the Business Regulations. Therefore, if the termination of the Petitioner's service is treated as major punishment, that provision has also not been complied with. In the circumstances, the order of termination would be bad on the ground that it has been made in violation of the provisions of the Business Regulations. As we have found that the impugned order is bad for violating clause 4(1) of the amended notification we are not going into the question as to whether the Business Regulations are statutory or non-statutory, even though we have found that the order was made in violation of the Regulations. 25. Sri Triloki Nath very strenuously contended that no writ can issue to the Provincial Co-operative Union which is a Co-operative Society. He relies very strongly on a decision of a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Radha Charan Sharma v. U.P. Co-operative Federation (1982 All C J 1 : 1982 UPLB and EC 89). In the case before the Full Bench, the petitioner was an employee of the U.P. Co-operative Federation Limited and was employed as a Sales Representative. He was suspended. He filed a writ petition challenging the order of suspension. A preliminary objection was taken to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the Federation was a private and non-statutory body and since the regulations framed by it were non-statutory, the writ petition was not maintainable. It was held by the Full Bench that the Federation was a Co-operative Society registered under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act and that it had framed the U.P. Co-operative Federation Service Rules. The Bench found that at the time aforeasaid Rules were framed by the Federation (sic) and as such were in the nature of bye-laws or articles of association which were binding on the parties but were not legally enforceable. 26. The Full Bench went on to hold that assuming the regulation was statutory, the Federation could not be held to be a State within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution. 26. The Full Bench went on to hold that assuming the regulation was statutory, the Federation could not be held to be a State within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution. The Court took into consideration a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (Writ Petition No. 1304 of 1979 decided by the Supreme Court on 13-11-1980 : ( AIR 1981 SC 487 )) in which case it was held that the Regional Engineering College, Srinagar which was a society registered under the Jammu and Kashmir Registration of Societies Act, 1898 was not an authority within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution and so a writ petition did not lie against it. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. J. Tewari v. Smt. Jwala Devi Vidya Mandir ( AIR 1981 SC 122 ) it was held that reinstatement cannot be claimed against a private body even if the order is found to be illegal. 27. The Full Bench also relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Co-operative Central Bank Limited v. Addl. Industrial Tribunal, ( AIR 1970 SC 245 ) :(1970 Lab I C 285) where in paragraph 10 the Supreme Court observed as follows : - "We are unable to accept the submission that the bye-laws of a co-operative society framed in pursuance of the provisions of the Act can be held to be law or have the force of law. It has no doubt been held that, if a statute gives power to a Government or other authority to make rules, the rules so framed have the force of statute and are to be deemed to be incorporated as a part of the statute. That principle, however does not apply to bye-laws of the nature that a cooperative society is empowered by the Act to make. The bye-laws that are contemplated by the Act can be merely those which govern the internal management, business or administration of a society. They may be binding between the persons affected by them, but they do not have the force of a statute. The bye-laws that are contemplated by the Act can be merely those which govern the internal management, business or administration of a society. They may be binding between the persons affected by them, but they do not have the force of a statute. In respect of bye-laws laying down conditions of service of the employees of a society, the bye-laws would be binding between the society and the employees just in the same manner as conditions of service laid down by contract between the parties. In fact, after such bye-laws laying down the conditions of service are made and any person enters the employment of a society those conditions of service will have to be treated as conditions accepted by the employee when entering the service and will thus bind him like conditions of service specifically forming part of the contract of service. The bye-laws that can be framed by a society under the Act are similar in nature to the Articles of Association of a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and such Articles of Association have never been held to have the force of law." 28. His submission is that the Business Regulations have been framed by the U.P. Co-operative Union Limited and are non-statutory and, therefore, a violation of the Business Regulations cannot justify the grant of a writ. He further submits that the co-operative society is not a State within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution and as such no writ can be issued to it. 29. The next submission of Sri Triloki Nath is that the violation of Clause (1) of Para 4 of the amended Notification is not a violation of a statute of rules framed under statute and as such it is not actionable in a court of law. 30. The first question that arises for consideration is whether a writ can be issued to quash the order of the Deputy Registrar who has purported to act as the Appointing Authority under the Business Regulations. In the ordinary course, the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, being a Government Officer, his orders, if found to be illegal, can be quashed under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The question is whether where he acts in his capacity as an officer of the Federal Authority, his orders are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. In the ordinary course, the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, being a Government Officer, his orders, if found to be illegal, can be quashed under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The question is whether where he acts in his capacity as an officer of the Federal Authority, his orders are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. This leads us to the question as to whether the Federal Authority constituted under Section 123 of the Act is a State within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution. S. 123 of the Act has been reproduced earlier. Under sub-section (1) of that Section, it is provided that the State Government may constitute or recognise one or more Federal Authorities. R. 390 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968, (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules) provides as to how the State Government shall recognise a Co-operative Federal Authority. R. 390 (b) (i) provides that the State Government after consulting the Chairmen of all the apex level Cooperative Societies of the State, may for the purposes of Section 123, by notification in the gazette, recognise the U.P. Co-operative Union (PCU) as a co-operative federal authority in respect of all agricultural credit societies (including their central banks) and also for such other societies or class of societies as may be mentioned in the notification and clause (ii) provides that one or more appropriate apex level societies (may be recognised) as co-operative federal authority or authorities in respect of the rest of the societies. R. 390 provides that the Registrar may, under sub-section (2) of Section 123, fix the amount of contribution to be paid by a co-operative society or class of cooperative societies towards expenditure in respect of supervision of the societies and where such contributions are to be paid by a co-operative society affiliated to a central co-operative bank, the Registrar may order the bank to pay the contribution. 31. Any co-operative society registered under the Act cannot supervise the management of another society nor can require the society supervised to make the contribution towards it but when a cooperative society, like the U.P. Cooperative Union Limited, is recognised as Federal Authority, these consequences will follow. It gets a right to supervise other cooperative societies in certain respects and gets contribution from them which can .be enforced. It gets a right to supervise other cooperative societies in certain respects and gets contribution from them which can .be enforced. The Federal Authority is not registered under the Act but is a body created under S. 123(1) of the Act. Its management is entrusted not to the Committee of Management of the U.P. Cooperative Union Ltd. but to the Authority specified in the Notification issued by the Government. The Deputy Registrar who made the impugned order did not make it in relation to an employee of the U.P. Cooperative Union Limited but to an employee of the Federal Authority. The Deputy Registrar is also the Chairman of the Regional Committee. The Federal Authority is therefore, an 'Authority' within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution and is amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 32. The notifications issued by the Government have also the force of law as they were issued by the State Government under the powers vested in it under Section 123 of the Act. 33. We have already held earlier that there has been a violation of the provisions of clause (1) of Para 4 of the amended Notification as also of the Business Regulations in the making of the impugned order and the impugned order cannot, therefore, be sustained. 34. Sri Triloki Nath has urged that the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 70 of the Act. The opening part of sub-section (1) of Section 70 of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute relating to the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken against a paid servant of a society arises, such disputes shall be referred to the Registrar for action. 35. We find that there is no dispute between the U.P. Co-operative Union Limited and the petitioner but a dispute between the petitioner and the Federal Authority created under S. 123(1) of the Act and, therefore, S. 70 of the Act would have no application. 36. It is then urged that an appeal is provided for under Regulation 70 of the Business Regulations. An appeal lies under Regulation 70(1) of the Business Regulations against an order passed by the Appointing Authority. 36. It is then urged that an appeal is provided for under Regulation 70 of the Business Regulations. An appeal lies under Regulation 70(1) of the Business Regulations against an order passed by the Appointing Authority. Regulation 70 (1), so far as material, is as under : "70.(1) Every staff member shall be entitled to appeal as hereinafter provided against an order passed by- (a) The appointing Authority imposing upon him a major punishment, to the Administrative Committee. (b) within ninety days of the date of the order of punishment. Provided that the appellate authority may entertain any appeal within 30 days of the expiry of the period mentioned above if he is satisfied that the delay in preferring the appeal was beyond the control of the staff member concerned." 37. The order passed against the petitioner purported to be an order of termination simpliciter and if he thought that no appeal lay he was not to blame. In the next place, the impugned order was made on 23-11-1977 and the writ petition was filed on 23-12-1977 and admitted on 25-12-1977. Under the Regulation 70(1) the appellate Authority can extend the period for filing an appeal by only 30 days and' as such as appeal filed by the petitioner would be barred by time and the authority cannot extend the time and in the last place very serious questions of law were involved and they need to be decided by this court. In the circumstances even if the order was appealable under Regulation 70, the existence of right of appeal should not stand in the way of issue of a writ by this Court. 38. We have not investigated the facts and circumstances which led to the making of the impugned order. We find that there were very serious charges against the petitioner which led to the making of the impugned order. We normally would not have interfered with the impugned order but in view of the fact that the impugned order had been made by the Deputy Registrar who had no jurisdiction to make the impugned order and specially without holding an enquiry, we cannot allow the impugned order to stand. 39. We, therefore, allow this writ petition and quash the impugned order of the Deputy Registrar dated 23-11-1977 (Annexure 1 to the writ-petition). We leave it open to the. 39. We, therefore, allow this writ petition and quash the impugned order of the Deputy Registrar dated 23-11-1977 (Annexure 1 to the writ-petition). We leave it open to the. proper authority to take action against the petitioner, if it is so advised. We, however, deprive the petitioner of his costs.