JUDGMENT K.N. Goyal, J. - The petitioner was a Salesman of it Sadhan Sahkari Samiti and is aggrieved by the order of termination of his services passed by the Society. The post of Salesman is not centralised. and it Sadhan Sahkari Samiti is not one of the Societies which are mentioned in Notification No. 366- C XII-C-36-71, dated March 4, 1972, issued under Section 122 of the U.P. Co-operative Employees Service Regulations, 1975 are not attracted because of the definition of Co- operative Society" contained in Regulation 2(ix) of the said Regulation. Learned counsel for the petitioner however contends that the appointments of salesman were made in pursuance of the Registrar's Circulars dated 3-2-84 and 20-3-84 annexure 14 and 13 respectively and those circulars should be deemed to have been issued by the Registrar under Section 121 of the Act. This contention is not tenable in view of the express provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 121 which lays clown that the regulations framed under sub-section (1) shall be published in the gazette and take effect from the date of such publication. The circulars relied upon are not shmvii to have been published in the gazette and cannot therefore he treated as regulations made under Section 121(1). The Registrar may have issued directions in order to ensure that the Government's scheme of public distribution of essential commodities through cooperative societies is run smoothly and no wastage occurs while making indiscriminate recruitment's on the post of salesman. This does not however imply that the Registrar by issuance of such circulars meant to make the services of those salesmen statutory or to make statutory regulations for conditions of their service. In this view of the matter a writ petition cannot lie against an order of the Co-operative Society which is it private body. 2. The petitioner has also challenged the order of the Additional Registrar (exercising the powers of Registrar) dated 1-9-84 on the petitioner's appeal purporting to be made under the aforesaid Regulations of 1975 read with sections 122 and 128 of the Act. By this order the Additional Registrar has declined to pass any stay order on the ground that he has no powers to stay. The appeal of the petitioner purported to be under regulation 86 of the 1975 Regulations referred to earlier. By this order the Additional Registrar has declined to pass any stay order on the ground that he has no powers to stay. The appeal of the petitioner purported to be under regulation 86 of the 1975 Regulations referred to earlier. We have already seen above that those regulations are not applicable to the petitioner's case and as such no appeal lay under Regulation 86. The petitioner however contends that the Registrar had power of interference under Section 128 of the Act. Section 128 empowers the Registrar to annul any resolution of a co-operative society or cancel any order passed by an officer of the society if such it resolution or order is in contravention of the provisions of the Act, Rules or by laws of the Society. We have seen Byelaws that there is no provision in-the Act or Rules, nor has any Byelaws of the society been shown, on the basis of which it could be contended that the Registrar could annul the impugned order. The Registrar has no power of interference if no provision of the Act, Rule or Byelaws has been breached. The order of the Additional Registrar is thus not open to challenge. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed in limine.