Ram Ghulam v. District Magistrate, Lucknow — 1983 DIGILAW 403 (ALL)

JUDGMENT K.S. Varma, J. - The Northern Railway primary Co-operative Bank Ltd.. Lucknow is a co-operative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act with its head office at 19-A, Vidhan Sabha Marg. Lucknow. The said Bank has its own bye- taws and according to the said bye-laws any person over 18 years of age, who is employed in the Northern Railway, within the area of operation of the Bank, is eligible for becoming a member of the Bank if he satisfies the conditions prescribed by the bye-laws. The area of operation of the Bank is as follows : "(i) Northern Railway, Lucknow Division, and C. C. M. Office, Varanasi. (ii) Northern Railway. Moradabad Division. (iii) Northern Railway, Allahabad Division, and Locomotive Workshop, Varanasi. (iv) Loco Workshop. Northern Railway. Lucknow. (v) Carriage & Wagons Workshop Northern Railway. Lucknow. (vi) Other Departments of Northern Railway, Lucknow such as Electric Stores, Medical and Railway Protection Force." The election of the delegates of the Society was held on 18th Feb. 1983 in which the petitioner was elected a delegate with highest votes from Carriage & Wagons Workshop, Northern Railway, Alambagh, Lucknow. After the election of delegates a Committee of Management has to be elected. The delegates of the Society who are 100 in number have to elect a Committee of Management. The election was scheduled to take place on 20-4-1983. Before the election, opposite parties 4 to 11 filed an application under R. 229 (2)(b) of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Rules. 1968 hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and raised a dispute regarding the election of delegates of Northern Railway Primary Co- operative Bank held on 18-2-1983. A copy of the application is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. On 8th April, 1983, the District Magistrate, Lucknow passed the following order on Annexure 1 : "Election Officer. To report with facts, Stay meanwhile. Issue notices to all concerned. Put up on 6-5-1983". The effect of the order dated 8-4-1983 passed by the District Magistrate, Lucknow is that the election of the Committee of Management will not take place. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged that the arbitration proceedings initiated by respondents 4 to 11 by Annexure 1 are illegal and without jurisdiction and have been initiated to prevent the election of the Committee of Management. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged that the arbitration proceedings initiated by respondents 4 to 11 by Annexure 1 are illegal and without jurisdiction and have been initiated to prevent the election of the Committee of Management. It is stated in para 23 of the Petition that no specific election of any delegate on specific grounds has been challenged and the arbitration proceedings are for stopping the election of the Committee of Management. It is also contended that the arbitration proceedings are beyond the scope of S. 70 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) as the election of the Committee of Management was still not over. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that in Writ Petition No. 3194 of 1982 this Court on 5-8-1982 issued a writ of mandamus to the authorities to hold election of the Committee of Management within a period of one month. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the order dated 5-8-1982, the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to stay the election of the Committee of Management. In these circumstances the petitioner has challenged that the order of stay passed by the District Magistrate on 8-4- 1983 be quashed and a writ of mandamus be issued directing the opposite parties to complete the process of election of the Committee of Management. On this petition a Division Bench of this Court on 13-4-1983 passed an order that the election shall take place as scheduled on 20-4-1983 but the result shall not be declared till the next listing. The operation of the order passed by the District Magistrate quoted in para 18 of the Writ Petition was stayed to this extent. 2. This petition came up for hearing before us on 27th April, 1983. We have heard Mr. A. Mannan for the petitioner and Mr. B. C. Saxena for the contesting respondents. It has been contended by Mr. Mannan that the election of the delegates has taken place and the Committee of Management has now to be elected. It is contended that the District Magistrate, Lucknow has no jurisdiction to pass the order of stay in view of Proviso to S. 70(1) of the Act. B. C. Saxena for the contesting respondents. It has been contended by Mr. Mannan that the election of the delegates has taken place and the Committee of Management has now to be elected. It is contended that the District Magistrate, Lucknow has no jurisdiction to pass the order of stay in view of Proviso to S. 70(1) of the Act. The said proviso provides that a dispute relating to an election under the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder shall not be referred to the Registrar until after the declaration of the result of such election. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the election of delegates has taken place and by Annexure 1, opposite parties 4 to 11 purport to challenge the election of delegates. It may be that the election of the delegates may be challenged in proceedings initiated under S. 70 of the Act and R. 229 (2) of the Rules framed under the Act but during the pendency of such a dispute the District Magistrate Lucknow has no jurisdiction to stay the election of Committee of Management. R. 2(11) of the Rules defines .election' in the following manner : " "Election" means election of - (i) delegates, or (ii) members of the committee of management, or (iii) Chairman, Vice-Chairman of a co- operative society." The aforesaid definition indicates that the elections of delegates, members of the committee of management, Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Society are separate elections and the election of each one of the categories may be challenged under S. 70 of the Act but that can be done only when the result has been declared. By Annexure I which purports to challenge the election of delegates, the election of the Committee of Management cannot be challenged or stayed. 3. On the other hand. Mr. B. C. Saxena for the contesting opposite parties has contended that it is the delegates who have to elect the Committee of Management and if the election of delegates is challenged. the District Magistrate Lucknow could stay the election of the Committee of Management as the election of such a Committee was dependent upon the validity of the election of delegates. According to Mr. B. C. Saxena, the District Magistrate in these circumstances has inherent power to stay the election of the Committee of Management. 4. the District Magistrate Lucknow could stay the election of the Committee of Management as the election of such a Committee was dependent upon the validity of the election of delegates. According to Mr. B. C. Saxena, the District Magistrate in these circumstances has inherent power to stay the election of the Committee of Management. 4. S. 70 of the Act finds place in Chapter IX of the Act which is headed as 'Settlement of Disputes'. The section enumerates the disputes which can be referred to arbitration. In respect of disputes relating to election, a proviso is added to S. 70 which provides that a dispute relating to an election under the provisions of this Act or the Rules made thereunder shall not be referred to the Registrar until after the declaration of the result of such election. S. 71 of the Act provides that on receipt of a reference under S. 70, the Registrar may decide the dispute himself or refer it for decision to an arbitrator appointed by him. Sub-sec. (3) of S. 71 provides that the arbitrator to whom a dispute is referred for decision may, pending the decision of the dispute make such interlocutory orders including attachment of property as he or they may deem necessary in the interests of justice. Sub-sec. (5) of S. 71 of the Act provides that the procedure to be followed by the Registrar or arbitrator in deciding the dispute and making an award under the section shall be as may be prescribed. R. 2(11) of the Rules defines `election' as meaning the election of delegates or members of the Committee of Management or Chairman or vice Chairman of the Cooperative Society. Chapter XVIII of the Rules deals with settlement of disputes and R. 229 (2) of the Rules provides that where the dispute relates to the constitution of the Committee of management or election or appointment of any office bearer or a delegate of a cooperative society the reference in the case of a cooperative society other than an apex society, may be made to the District Magistrate of the district to which the society belongs. An analysis of the provisions referred to above, would indicate that if the election either of the delegates or members of the Committee of Management or Chairman or Vice chairman of the cooperative society is challenged under S. 70 of the Act, such a challenge can be made only after the declaration of the result of such election. It is also clear from a perusal of the aforesaid provisions that the District Magistrate, Lucknow to whom the dispute has been referred had no jurisdiction to pass an order staying the election of the Committee of Management on a dispute purporting to have been raised in regard to the election of delegates. 5. I have examined the provisions of the Act and the Rules with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties but I have not been able to lay my hands upon any provision of the Act or the Rules made thereunder whereby the District Magistrate, Lucknow is empowered to stay the election of the Committee of Management in a dispute purporting to have been raised in regard to the election of delegates. On the other hand, the intention of the legislature appears to be obvious that the election of the delegates or election of the members of the Committee of Management may be challenged under S. 70 of the Act only when the result of the election had been declared. In this connection it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Nanhoo Mal v. Hira Mal AIR 1975 SC 2140 ). The dispute before the Supreme Court related to the election of the office of the President of the Municipal Board which was challenged in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the U. P. Municipalities Act. The election of the President was challenged before the High Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that there was non-compliance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The High Court set aside the election. The order of the High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court on the ground that the dispute relating to election could be challenged only by an election petition under U. P, Municipalities Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The High Court set aside the election. The order of the High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court on the ground that the dispute relating to election could be challenged only by an election petition under U. P, Municipalities Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The Supreme Court held that the election to the office of the President could be challenged only in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Act, that is, by means of an election petition and in no other manner. Since the Act provided only one remedy after the election was over, there was no remedy provided at an intermediate stage and on that ground the Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the High Court. In the instant case, proviso to S. 70 of the Act clearly provides the procedure how an election may be challenged. The election is open to challenge only after the declaration of the result of such election. It is not in dispute that the election of delegates has taken place and it was purported to be challenged by Annexure 1. The election of the Committee of Management is a separate election which has to be elected by the delegates. In view of the fact that the election of the delegates and of the Committee of Management are two separate elections, it is not within the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate, Lucknow to stay the election of the committee of Management in proceedings relating to the election of delegates. The election of the Committee of Management can be challenged only after the declaration of the result and the District Magistrate, Lucknow has no jurisdiction to stay the election of the Committee of Management. The Supreme Court has clearly indicated in Nanhoo Mal v. Hira Mal ( AIR 1975 SC 2140 ) (Supra) that the election disputes can be challenged only in the manner provided for by the statutes. 6. Mr. B. C. Saxena, learned counsel for the opposite parties placed reliance on S. 19-A of the U. P. General Clauses Act. The Supreme Court has clearly indicated in Nanhoo Mal v. Hira Mal ( AIR 1975 SC 2140 ) (Supra) that the election disputes can be challenged only in the manner provided for by the statutes. 6. Mr. B. C. Saxena, learned counsel for the opposite parties placed reliance on S. 19-A of the U. P. General Clauses Act. The section provides that where by any Uttar Pradesh Act, a power is given to a person, officer or functionary to do or enforce the doing of an act or thing, all such powers shall be deemed to be given as are necessary to enable that person, officer or functionary to do or enforce the doing of the Act or thing. By reference to this provision it is contended that the election of the delegates can be challenged as has been done by Annexure 1. The argument is that since the delegates elect the Committee of Management, the District Magistrate, Lucknow shall be deemed to have the ancillary power of staying an election which depends upon the validity of elected persons (sic) who are going to elect the Committee of Management. In my opinion, it is not possible for the opposite parties to derive any assistance from S. 19-A of the U. P. General Clauses Act. The U. P. Co- operative Societies Act contemplates the election of delegates who in turn elect a Committee of Management. The election of both may be challenged only after the declaration of the result as is provided by proviso to S. 70 of the Act. The Co- operative Societies Act provides for an election of two bodies one after the other and in this view of the matter S. 19-A of the U. P. General Clauses Act will be of no avail to the contesting opposite parties. The said section may empower the District Magistrate, Lucknow to pass any ancillary orders in relation to the election of the delegates but the said power will not confer any authority on him to stay an election which has to take palace at a later stage. I am, accordingly, of the view that S. 19-A of the U.P. General Clauses Act has no application to the facts of the instant case. Reliance was also placed by Mr. B. C. Saxena on Income- tax Officer, Cannanore v. M. K. Mohammed Kunchi ( AIR 1969 SC 430 ). I am, accordingly, of the view that S. 19-A of the U.P. General Clauses Act has no application to the facts of the instant case. Reliance was also placed by Mr. B. C. Saxena on Income- tax Officer, Cannanore v. M. K. Mohammed Kunchi ( AIR 1969 SC 430 ). The said case dealt with interpretation of S. 255 (5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Mr. Saxena relied upon the following observations of the Supreme Court at page. 435 of the report : "S. 255 (5) of the Act does empowers the appellate Tribunal to regulate its own procedure, but it is very doubtful if the power of stay can be spelt out from the provision. In our opinion the Appellate Tribunal must be held to have the power to grant stay as incidental or ancillary to its appellate jurisdiction." By reference to the aforesaid observations it is contended that the District Magistrate, Lucknow had jurisdiction to pass an order of stay of the election of the Committee of Management. In my opinion, the observations quoted above have no application to the facts of the case. The District Magistrate, Lucknow is seized with the power to enquire into the correctness of the election of delegates. The jurisdiction that he has, is to adjudicate upon the election of the delegates. While exercising that jurisdiction he may exercise powers incidental or ancillary to his jurisdiction but the District Magistrate cannot under the garb of incidental or ancillary powers bring about the stay of an election which is completely separate and distinct from the election of delegates. The jurisdiction conferred by the Act and the Rules to, examine the validity of election of delegates is a jurisdiction entirely different from the one which he may have after the election of the Committee of Management. The jurisdiction exercisable by him over Annexure 1 is entirely different from the one which he may have when he may be called upon to examine the validity of the election of the Committee of Management. In my opinion, the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Income-tax Officer, Cannanore v. M. K. Mohammed Kunchi (Supra) has clearly no application to the facts of the case. In my opinion, the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Income-tax Officer, Cannanore v. M. K. Mohammed Kunchi (Supra) has clearly no application to the facts of the case. As a matter of fact, the observations quoted above support the contention of the petitioner to this extent that while exercising one jurisdiction, namely, the jurisdiction to decide the validity of the election of delegates, he may pass any orders which may be incidental or ancillary to his jurisdiction while he is called upon to decide the validity of the election of the delegates. But while exercising that power he cannot under the garb of incidental or ancillary jurisdiction pass any order which is not within the scope of the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate, Lucknow. 7. On behalf of the opposite parties reliance was also placed on Baleshwar Dayal v. State of U.P. (1971 All LJ 1074 : ( AIR 1972 All 12 ) (FB)); the Full Bench observed that while exercising powers under S. 7-F of U.P. Act 3 of 1947 the State Government has jurisdiction to pass interim orders including stay order which it may consider necessary in the interests of justice. This decision is also not of any help to the opposite parties. It is also based upon a recognised principle of interpretation of statutes that where a statute confers a power on an authority such ancillary and incidental powers to that power must be implied as are necessary for the effective or complete exercise of that power and it would be within its jurisdiction. 8. I have already held above that the District Magistrate was seized with the power to adjudicate upon the election of the delegates and he may have the jurisdiction to pass any ancillary or incidental orders for the effective exercise of that power but the election of the Committee of Management is a separate election process which by no means has any connection with the election of delegates. In my opinion, the order of stay passed by the District Magistrate staying the election of the Committee of Management is an action in excess of his jurisdiction, as such a power was not incidental or ancillary to the jurisdiction relating to the inquiry into the election dispute about the delegates. 9. In my opinion, the order of stay passed by the District Magistrate staying the election of the Committee of Management is an action in excess of his jurisdiction, as such a power was not incidental or ancillary to the jurisdiction relating to the inquiry into the election dispute about the delegates. 9. After having examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to stay the election of the Committee of Management while purporting to exercise his powers in regard to disputes relating to election of delegates and the writ petition deserves to be allowed. U.C. Srivastava, J. : - 10. I agree with Brother K. S. Varma, J, that the writ petition be allowed and the order passed by the District Judge be quashed, but I would like to say few words of my own. 11. The writ petition is directed against interlocutory order passed by the District Magistrate, Lucknow, before whom the application for arbitration under S. 70 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for resolving the alleged dispute regarding election of delegates of Northern Railway Primary Co- operative Bank who were to elect Committee of Management on the date fixed as per schedule was presented. The entire election of the delegates was questioned on the ground that there was non-compliance of the provisions of the Rules framed under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act. It was mentioned in the said application that electoral rolls were not amended and delineation of the constituencies as required was also not made. The prayer was that the election of the Committee of Management be stayed and fresh election of delegates which has taken place on 6th March, 1983 be declared illegal. Any such election on the ground of non-compliance of rules could be set aside only if there is gross non-compliance with the provisions of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules framed thereunder and bye-laws of the Society, provided the same has materially affected the result of the election. It will be relevant to point out that litigation in the Society regarding Committee of Management started years ago. The Society was placed under the Administrator and this Court in a writ petition vide its order dated 20th Sept. It will be relevant to point out that litigation in the Society regarding Committee of Management started years ago. The Society was placed under the Administrator and this Court in a writ petition vide its order dated 20th Sept. 1981 quashed the proceedings of the Annual General Meeting and declaration of the result of the said election and directed the Registrar and the Administrator to reconstitute the Committee of Management in accordance with law. Again in a subsequently filed writ petition mandamus was issued to hold the election of the Committee within a period of one month. This order was passed on 5-8-82. The election of delegates took place on 6-3-1983 and the election of the Committee of Management was scheduled for 20th April, 1983. The Administrator and the District Magistrate were also parties to the previous writ petition. 12. The question which has been raised in this writ petition is regarding entertain-ability of an application under S. 70 of U.P. Co-operative Societies Act challenging the election of delegates and the competence or jurisdiction of the District Magistrate as Arbitrator staying the election of committee of Management for which date was fixed. 13. S. 70 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act which occurs in Chapter IX of the Act dealing with settlement of disputes includes within its ambit disputes regarding an election of Co-operative Society under the said Act and Rules framed thereunder. The proviso to the said section puts a bar regarding the stage at which reference can be made and the same provides that it could not be made until after declaration of result of election. The said S. 70 of the Act also provides that no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of any such dispute and orders. S. 90 of the Act provides that provisions of said chapter are to prevail over other law and S. 111 of the Act which specifically bars jurisdiction of any civil or revenue court in the matter of dispute referable under S. 70 of the Act to Registrar, ousts the jurisdiction of other courts in such matter and makes the jurisdiction of arbitrators exclusive within the ambit of the Act and Rules framed thereunder. U. P. Co- operative Societies Act and Rules framed thereunder are complete Code in respect of matters provided therein which have not been made subject to or ancillary to any other law in this behalf. The jurisdiction of an arbitrator or appellate authority under the Act is quite clear and a specific procedure to be followed by them has been prescribed in the Act and Rules framed thereunder under which they come into existence. 14. Much of the argument raised by either parties in this case is not quite relevant inasmuch as the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, itself confers power on an arbitrator to (make) such interlocutory order as he deems necessary in the interest of justice. Power to grant interim relief has been conferred under S. 100 of the Act on an appellate authority before which appeal against an award is preferred. S. 71(3) of the Act reads as under : "S. 71(3). The Registrar, the arbitrator or board of Arbitrators, to whom a dispute is referred for decision under this section may, pending the decision of the dispute make such interlocutory orders including attachment of property as he or they may deem necessary in the interest of justice." 'Interlocutory' means something which happens or intervenes between the commencement of law proceeding and its termination. An order made during the progress of suit or legal proceedings upon some incidental matter which arises in course of the proceedings including an order of injunction will be an interlocutory order. 15. An arbitrator under the U. P. Co- operative Societies Act has thus a jurisdiction to pass any order during the progress of proceedings in respect of some incidental matter which arises out of the proceedings provided the same is in the interest of justice. The jurisdiction of an arbitrator under the 'Act' is rather defined and limited and starts after a particular matter is referred to him. It is thereafter he gets jurisdiction to pass an interlocutory order. Any matter anterior to such reference is not a matter arising out of proceedings pending before the arbitrator or is incidental to it. An election which is still to take place or had taken place though linked with the selection or election which is subject matter of dispute would not be a proceeding incidental to proceedings arising out of dispute so raised and referred. 16. An election which is still to take place or had taken place though linked with the selection or election which is subject matter of dispute would not be a proceeding incidental to proceedings arising out of dispute so raised and referred. 16. In the instant case the question of entertain-ability of the application under S. 70 of the Act and the relief so claimed is not relevant for the purpose of this petition and the main question is whether the District Magistrate that is, the Registrar aware of some orders passed in a writ petition by this Court and awaiting report on it can pass an interlocutory order staying the holding of election to the Committee of Management dates for which are said to have been fixed in accordance with Rules. The incidental question is whether elected delegates so long as their election is not declared invalid can be restrained from exercising their rights as such even temporarily or the declaration of result made in their favour-can be suspended. Yet another question which arises is whether other categories of delegates or representatives who too have a right to vote in the election of Committee of Management and who are not or could not be party to the reference so made could be restained from exercising their rights as such. 17. At this stage it will be relevant to make cursory reference to the scheme of the Act regarding the election of the Co- operative Societies. Under the Act after election of delegates in the annual general meeting election of Committee of Management takes place in which apart from elected delegates others are entitled under the Act to participate and elect the Committee of Management which later on elects office bearers. In the wider sense it will be one election which would include the election of delegates at the intermediate stage while in the narrower sense it would be different election though linked with each ether and every such election would be open to challenge separately under S. 70 of the Act. The election to a particular office or committee itself is not confined to any particular stage. The election to a particular office or committee itself is not confined to any particular stage. It means the entire process consisting of several stages and embracing several steps by which an elected member is returned, whether it is found necessary to hold poll or not (see : N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency AIR 1952 SC 64 ) and State of Karnataka v. Gunyhalli Nagappa (1976-1 SCC 204) : ( AIR 1975 SC 1708 ). 18. Election to the Committee of Management takes' place after election of delegates is over. It is settled law that election process cannot be held up indefinitely. If any election at intermediate stage is questioned and election to higher office for a particular term although depending on it is stayed, the term would be over and there would be no election even though the said challenge may ultimately fail. 19. In connection with the election to the office of the President of India the holding of same was questioned before the Supreme Court as election to the Union territory of Himachal Pradesh which was to elect four members to the Lok Sabha and election of a few members of Lok Sabha in the State of Punjab had not taken place. It was observed in Dr. Narayan Bhaskar Khare v. Election Commission - AIR 1957 SC 694 (at P. 697). "As already indicated, Article 71 (1) confers jurisdiction and power on this Court to inquire into and decide all doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with the election of a President or Vice- President". The question is : Is there in this Article or in any other part of the Constitution or anywhere else any indication as to the time when such inquiry is to be held? In the first place, Article 71 postulates an "election of the President or Vice-President" and provides for inquiry into doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with such an election. 'What is the meaning to be given to the word "election" as used in this article? In the first place, Article 71 postulates an "election of the President or Vice-President" and provides for inquiry into doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with such an election. 'What is the meaning to be given to the word "election" as used in this article? If we give to the word "election" occurring in Article 71 (1) the same wide meaning as comprising the entire election process culminating in a candidate being declared elected, then clearly the inquiry is to be made after such completed election i.e., after a candidate is declared to be elected as President or Vice-President as the case may be. We see no reason why this accepted meaning should not be given to the critical word." Then referring to S. 18 which lays down the grounds for declaring the election of a returned candidate to be void it was observed that ......This means that all doubts and disputes relating to any stage of the entire election process is to be canvassed by an election petition presented to this Court after the election in its wide sense is concluded... The well recognised principle of election law, Indian and English is that election should not be held up and that the person aggrieved should not be permitted to ventilate his individual interest in derogation of the general interest of the people which requires that elections should be gone through according to the time schedule." The said case again reiterated that election should not be held- up and the general interest of the people required that the election should be gone through according to the time schedule and it is not subordinate to the individual interest even if he has some grievance in the matter of election. 20. 20. In A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman v. Union of India ( 1982 (2) S.C.C. 218 ) the election to West Bengal Assembly which was going to take place was challenged on the ground of irregularities in the matter of electoral rolls and the Supreme Court while dismissing the writ petition observed that "though the High Court did not lack the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition and to issue appropriate direction therein no High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution shall pass any order interim or otherwise, which has the tendency or effect of postponing an election which is reasonably imminent and in relation to which writ jurisdiction is invoked. The imminence of the electoral process is a factor which must guide and govern the passing of orders in the exercise of the High Court's writ jurisdiction". The Registrar under the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act is creation of statute itself and his powers are defined and limited under the said Act. His powers do not travel to the extent the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution are exercisable. The Registrar has got some powers of civil Court exercisable under C. P. C. as enumerated in the `Act' but he has no power to exercise powers under O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2, read with S. 94, C. P. C. under the Act nor can such power be spelt out from it. 21. The election of the Committee of Management arising out of proceedings pending before the Registrar challenging election of delegates or election of the Committee of Management is not a matter incidental to the exercise of the powers by the Registrar in the proceedings for arbitration pending before' him. There are various stages of election and if the election at one stage is challenged that could not mean that election of a higher level or stage held separately can be stayed for which there is no specific statutory provision. If the same is done it may frustrate the purpose of election itself. The Registrar under the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules framed thereunder has no power to restrain the elected members or delegates from exercising their right as such even temporarily and thereby suspending the declaration in their favour which may or may not be cancelled. 22. The Registrar under the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules framed thereunder has no power to restrain the elected members or delegates from exercising their right as such even temporarily and thereby suspending the declaration in their favour which may or may not be cancelled. 22. Even ultimately if application for reference is allowed and the election of delegate or delegates is set aside, no proceedings in which they participate will be invalidated on that ground inasmuch as U. P. Co-operative Societies Act has made ample safeguard for the same under S. 118 of U. P. Co-operative Societies Act which provides that "No act of a co-operative society or any committee of management or of any officer of a co-operative society shall be deemed to be invalid by reason only of the existence of any defect in the constitution of such society or committee or in the appointment or election of such an officer or on the ground that such officer was disqualified for such appointment or election." 23. There can be no dispute as to the legal proposition that no court or authority is to pass an injunction order against the person who is not party to the proceedings and who has not been given any hearing before any such restraint order is passed against him. Interlocutory order staying the election to Committee of Management would mean restraining those also who are not parties to the proceedings and whose election or selection is, not under challenge. The order passed by the District Magistrate thus staying further election was without jurisdiction. Such order in no case could advance the cause of justice but would rather retard it. 24. On behalf of the opposite parties it was contended that in view of the provisions of S. 19-A of U. P. General Clauses Act the arbitrator has power to pass such an interim order as has been passed in this case. In this connection reference to certain cases including a case decided under the income- tax Act was made where the appellate authority was held to have possessed ancillary power. In this connection reference to certain cases including a case decided under the income- tax Act was made where the appellate authority was held to have possessed ancillary power. The said matter came before the appellate authority after the original authority decided the matter which took a particular view (sic) ancillary or inherent powers cannot be exercised in case there is specific provision for exercising such powers, the scope of which cannot be enlarged by invoking inherent or ancillary powers. S. 19-A of the U. P. General Clauses Act reads as under :- "Ancillary powers; where by any Uttar Pradesh Act a power is given to a person, officer or functionary to do or enforce the doing of any act or thing, all such powers shall be deemed also to be given as are necessary to enable that person, officer or functionary to do or enforce the doing of the act or thing." Under the said Act power is given to a person, officer or functionary to do or enforce the doing of any act or thing. The emphasis is given on the word `necessary. The word 'necessary' is capable of various meanings. It is to he used in the context the same is used. It has been defined indispensable, requisite, essential, useful, conducive, inevitable or not to be avoided. Passing of interim order restraining the elected delegates from exercising their right as such or restraining further election is neither indispensable, requisite or unavoidable for deciding the reference under S. 70 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act. It was not at all necessary to grant an interim order in question, the result of which was staying the election of Committee of Management which was to take place after several years and that too in view of the mandamus issued by this Court in this behalf. Although ordinarily writ petitions are not entertained against interlocutory order, but when an order is palpably without jurisdiction and in gross violation of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and the direction given by the Court which may frustrate the very purpose of election, the writ petition can always be entertained. The writ petition thus deserves to be allowed and the order passed by the District Magistrate is liable to be quashed. By Court 25. The writ petition thus deserves to be allowed and the order passed by the District Magistrate is liable to be quashed. By Court 25. As a result of the findings recorded above the writ petition is allowed and the order of the District Magistrate dated 8-4- 1983 staying the election of the Committee of Management is quashed. We are informed that the election has already taken place. Opposite parties 2 and 3 will now declare the result of the election of the Committee of Management. The petitioner shall he entitled to his costs.