H. L. AGRAWAL, C. J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in this writ application challenges the order dated 13-11-1978 (Annexure-12) passed by the Registrar Co-operative societies, Orissa (Opposite Party No. 5) rejecting his revision petition filed under Section 112 of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the sole and simple ground that his petition was not maintainable before him as the impugned order was not passed by an authority subordinate to him. ( 2 ) THE petitioner, who was appointed as a clerk on 5-4-1971 by the dhenkanal Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. (Opposite Party No. 1), a Society registered under the provisions of the Act and was working as such, was put under suspension by the order of opposite party No. 1 oa 27-11-1974 and thereafter his services were terminated after holding a disciplinary proceeding against him with effect from 4-11-1974, although the order of termination was passed and communicated to the petitioner much later on 20th September, 1976. Before entering into discussion of the main question that has been mooted out, we rectify that mistake in the crder of opposite party No. 1 by giving restrospective effect of the order of termination of the services of the petitioner. We accordingly hold that the order would be effective only from the date of its communication to the petitioner, i. e. 20-9-1976. ( 3 ) THE main challenge of the petitioner is to the order of the Registrar under the Act refusing to entertain the revision petition purported to be under section 112 of the Act. It empowers the Registrar either of his own motion or on an application by any person considering himself aggrieved, to call for and examine the record of any proceedings before any authority subordinate to him in which no apeallies, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned of being heard. The Registrar, as already indicated above, has taken the view that the opposite party No. 1, whose order terminating the services of the petitioner was challenged, was neither subordinate to the Registrar nor the disciplinary proceeding was a judicial proceeding under the Act. The Registrar, as already indicated above, has taken the view that the opposite party No. 1, whose order terminating the services of the petitioner was challenged, was neither subordinate to the Registrar nor the disciplinary proceeding was a judicial proceeding under the Act. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited our attention to various sections of the Act to show that the Registrar, right from entertaining the application for registration of the Co-operative Society has power either to grant or reject the same and has also various powers of control and therefore by virtue of those provisions it must be held that the Co-operative Society (opposite party No. 1) was an authority subordinate to the Regi3trar. ( 5 ) WE are afraid that such a bald proposition cannot be accepted unless it is held that the Society under the Act ipso facto is subordinate to the Registrar. The embargo put in Section 112 of the Act by the legislature would become meaningless. The various provisions of the Act to which reference was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are only those which give the Registrar a general power of administrative control and for that purpose we find it difficult to hold that as a matter of fact the Co-operative Society like opposite party No. 1 is an authority subordinate to the Registrar. There may be exercise of some administrative powers by the Registrar in appropriate' cases, which, in our opinion, would not make the Co-operative Society registered under the Act as an authority subordinate to the Registrar. In order that an authority is to be treated as subordinate to the Registrar the latter must have the authority to control the former by exercise of such powers to interfere in the affairs of the Co-operative Societies. Thus, it can be said that the Registrar has only the administrative control over the affairs aad business of the opposite party No. 1 which is not subordinate to him. ( 6 ) THE learned Government Advocate tried to take us to a short issue that the Co-operative Society could net be said to be an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and therefore, the question t at the opposite party No. 1 was subordinate to the Registrar becomes secondary. ( 6 ) THE learned Government Advocate tried to take us to a short issue that the Co-operative Society could net be said to be an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and therefore, the question t at the opposite party No. 1 was subordinate to the Registrar becomes secondary. We, however, do not propose to entertain this question as the application must fail on the first question itself. ( 7 ) WE do not find, therefore, any merit in this writ application, save and except our decision regarding prospective effect of the order of termination of the services of the petitioner. ( 8 ) IN the result, the writ application is allowed in part. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. Application allowed. .