OZA, AG. C. J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against an order passed by the chief Executive Officer, District Co-operative Land Development Bank Mandsaur removing the petitioner from service, and the order passed by the appellate Authority. Under Rule 43 of the Rules framed under Section 55 (1)of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. ( 2 ) THIS matter was listed before the learned single Judge before whom a preliminary objection was raised and on basis of the preliminary objection as to whether a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would lie against a co-operative society in view of the fact that it could be treated as a State under Article 12 of the Constitution. It appears that the learned single Judge observed that as this question deserves reconsideration of a Full Bench decision of this court in Ramswarup v. M. P. Co-operative Mar F. Ltd. [1976 MP LJ 376] the matter may be placed before a large Bench. Thereafter the matter was placed before a Division Bench and the Division Bench passed an order that as the decision of this court in Ramswarup v. M. P. Co-operative Mar F. Ltd. (Supra) is itself a decision of Full Bench the matter has to be placed before a larger Bench and, therefore, the petition has come up before us. ( 3 ) IN this petition the petitioner has challenged the order of removal passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Land Development Bank, and also the order passed by the Appellate Authority under Rule 43. The contention advanced by the petitioner is that the order passed by the appellate authority is not a speaking order and as the Appellate Authority is a statutory body hearing an appeal under Rule 43 of the Rules framed under Section 55 (1) of the co-operative Societies Act, a petition under Art. 266 will lie. Learned Counsel for the petitioner frankly conceded that he does not want to press the other question of issuing a direction against the co-operative society under article 226. Learned Counsel for the petitioner frankly conceded that he does not want to press the other question of issuing a direction against the co-operative society under article 226. ( 4 ) IN the Full Bench case of Ramswarup v. M. P. Co-operative Mar F. Ltd. itself it was observed :"as regards the second question whether a writ of mandamus, direction or order can bs issued under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India by a High Court against a society registered under Madhya Pradesh co-operative Societies Act, 1960 it is apparent that, as observed by us earlier, a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act does not fall within the definition of the term other authorities "as stated in Art. 12 of. the constitution and is not a statutory body. Therefore it will suffice to observe that normally such societies will not be amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court. "it appears that what has been ultimately decided in this Full Bench decision was about the Appellate Authority and it was observed that the jurisdiction under art. 226 of the Constitution can be invoked in proper cases where the violation of the provisions of Section 55 (1) is apparent, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he does not want to press the other question but to limit his contention in this petition only in respect of the order passed by the Appellate Authority, it appears that the question which, according to the learned single Judge, deserves re-consideration ofthe Full Bench decision does not arise, as it is well settled that when a statutory tribunal or an authority exercises jurisdiction under a statutory rule or law bearing an appeal involving the legal right of a citizen, the tribunal or authority is expected to pass a reasoned order. If such an order passed by the statutory tribunals or authorities is not a reasoned order or a speaking order, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution will lie to this court. If such an order passed by the statutory tribunals or authorities is not a reasoned order or a speaking order, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution will lie to this court. Learned counsel for the parties frankly conceded that if the petition is restricted to this limited question, the doubt expressed by the learned single is of no consequence and it is not necessary for this court to go into the wider question about the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 whether a writ or direction can be issued against a co-operative society in view of Article 12 of the Constitution of india. ( 5 ) IT is, therefore, clear that in view of the fact that the petitioner wants to press this petition purely on the limited question as regards the order passed by the Appellate Authority, which is alleged to be Annexure XI, there is no question of considering the Full Bench decision of this court in Ramswarup v, M. P. Co-operative Mar. F. Ltd. (supra ). ( 6 ) SECTION 55 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act provides :"55. Registrar's power to determine conditions of employment in societies. (1) The Registrar may, from time to time, frame rules governing the terms and conditions of employment in a society or class of societies and the society or class cf societies in which such terms and conditions of employment are applicable shall comply with the order that may be issued by the Registrar in this behalf, (2) Where dispute, including a dispute regarding terms of employment working -conditions and disciplinary action taken by a society, arises between a society and its employees, the registrar or any officer appointed by him not below tbe rank of Assistant Registrar shall decide the dispute and his decision shall be binding on the society and its employees; ' Provided that the Registrar or the officer referred to 'above shall not entertain the dispute unless presented to his within thirty days from the date of the order sought to be impugned : provided further that in computing the period of limitation under the foregoing proviso, the time requisite for obtaining copy of the order shall be excluded. Sub-section (1) of Section 55 empowers the Registrar to frame rules governing the terms and conditions of employment in a society or class of societies. Sub-section (1) of Section 55 empowers the Registrar to frame rules governing the terms and conditions of employment in a society or class of societies. It is not disputed that in exercise of the powers the Registrar framed rules in regard to the service conditions of the land Development Bank vide order dated 1st February 1973. Rule 43 of these rules reads : * * * * sub-rule (1) of this rule provides for an appeal to the authorities enumerated in clauses (ka) and (kha) of that sub-rule. It appears that an order passed by the Chief Executive Officer under clause (ka) is appealable before the staff committee. Annexure XI appears to be an intimation of the order on appeal which reads"it is on the basis of this that the only question raised by the petitioner in this petition is that this order passed by the Appellate Authority in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 43 which are statutory rules as they are framed by the Registrar in exercising of the powers conferred under Section 55 (1) of the Co-operative Societies Act, is not in accordance with law as it is not a speaking order and gives no reasons for the conclusion arrived at. ( 7 ) IN Narayan Co-operative Central Bank v. Narayan [ air 1977 SC 112 ] their Lordships of the Supreme Court also observed :"the High Court has dealt with the question whether a writ petition can be maintained against a co-operative society, but we are inclined to the view that the observations made by the High Court and its decision that such a writ petition is maintainable are not strictly in accordance with the decisions of this court. We would have liked to go into the question for ourselves, but it is unnecessary to do so as respondent No. 1 by his writ petition was asking for relief not really against a co-operative society but in regard to the order which was passed by the Registrar, who was acting as a statutory authority ia the purported exercise of powers conferred on him by the co-operative Societies Act. The writ petition was in that view maintainable. The writ petition was in that view maintainable. " ( 8 ) IN view of the limited question now raised in this petition, in our opinion, it is not necessary for us to go into the question for reconsideration of the Full Bench decision of this court, as it is settled that a statutory authority hearing an appeal involving a legal right of the citizen must pass a speaking order. In viavv of this limited question, therefore, it would not be proper for us to go into that question. It is, therefore, directed that the petition be listed before the learned Single sudge who will hear it on the limited question and dispose it of in accordance with law. .