B. D. AGARWAL, J. ( 1 ) U. P. Co-operative Cane Unions Federation Limited (for short the Federation) is an apex Society within the meaning of Section 2 (a 4) of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Various primary Societies, that is to say, Co-operative Cane development Unions in the State are affiliated to the Federation. The term of the Committee of Management of the Federation, which is three Cooperative years, expired on June 30, 1933. Election did not take place of members, Chairman or Vice-Chairman within this term to replace the outgoing committee. On June 30, 1983, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U, P. appointed the Cane Commissioner, U. P. as the Administrator, Committee of management of the Federation in exercise of powers under Section 29 (4) (b) of the Act. Under notification of the State Government made under Sectioa 3 (2) (3) Oane Commissioner is also the Registrar, Co-operative Cane Societies. ( 2 ) BY notification dated January 21,1970, issued by the State Government under Section 122 (1) of the Act tbe Cane Commissioner was constituted the authority for performing the functions mentioned in the said sub-section in respect of the employees of the Co-operative Cane Unions (including the federation ). The Authority framed the U. P. Cane Co-operative Service regulations, 1975, which were approved by the State Government and thereafter published by the Authority in the U. P. Gazette under notification dated september 27, 1975, on October 18, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "the regulations" ). Regulation 35 specifies tbe Authorities competent to recruit and appoint staff indicated against each. These Authorities consist of the Zonal cane Service Authority; District Can Service Authority ; Regional Cane Service authority and State Cane Service Authority. We are here concerned with the State Cane Service Authority alone. The power given to the State Cane service Authority is in respect of recruitment and appointment of the following categories t (I) Accountants and Cashiers of Cane Unions ; (II) IV class staff of the Federation ; (III) Drivers of vehicles owned by the Federation ; (IV) Ministerial Staff of the Federation ; (V) Supervisory Staff of the Cane Unions and the Federation; (VI) Fertilizer Inspectors; (VII) Engineers and Overseers ; and (VIII) Instructors. ( 3 ) CONSTITUTION of the State Cane Service Authority is prescribed under regulation 36 (4) and it is as under t -I. Cane Commissioner, U. P. Lucknow Ex officio Chairman. II. Two representatives of the Committee of Management of the Federation to be nominated by the Committee of Management of the federation Members ;iii. Managing Director of the Federation Ex officio Members; andiv. An Officer appointed by the Cane Commissioner Secretary. ( 4 ) UNDER order made on July 4/5, 1988, the Cane Commissioner re-constituted the State Cane Service Authority ; wherein, so far as relevant, he included Shiv Nath Singh and Durga Prasad Misra respondents as the two representatives of the Committee of Management of the Federation saying that the reconstitution had become necessary due to the term of the Committee of management of the Federation having expired with effect from June 30,1983. ( 5 ) RAGBUVIR Singh (the petitioner) is a member of the general body of the Federation ia capacity as delegate of the Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti limited, Dhanpur a Co-operative Cane Development Union. He brought writ petition No. 14960 of 1984 in this Court on November 14,1984, claiming the reliefs as under t (A) to issue any suitable order, direction or writ including writ in the nature of quo warr (into) equiring the Cane Commissioner/registrar, cane Co-operative Society/administrator to show cause as to by what authority he is functioning as Administrator and the mandamus may be issued commanding him for not functioning as administrator; (B) to Issue any suitable order, direction writ including writ in the nature of quo warranto requiring respondents Nos. 5 and 6 to show cause as to by what authority they are continuing as members of state Cane Service Authority and the mandamus may be issued commanding them for not functioning as such ; (C) to issue any suitable order, direction or writ including writ in nature of mandamus and command the Cane Commissioner/registrar, gane Co-operative Societies for holding the election in the Co-operative Cane unions and in the Federation at earliest; (D) to Issue any suitable order, direction or writ and declare the U. P. (Sane Go-operative Service Regulations, 1975 as ineffective being null and void. ( 6 ) DURING the pendeney of this petition the Registrar replaced the administrator, whom he had appointed under order dated June 30, 1983, and instead appointed Shiv Nath Singh as the Administrator by order dated May 16, 1986 in exercise of powers under Secticn 29 (4) (b) of the Act. Writ Petition no. 15543 of 1986 has been brought by Dhir Singh directed against this appointment of Shiv Nath Singh as the Administrator seekiag a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the said order and a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the State Government and the Registrar to hold elections of the Committee of Management of the Federa-tion without further delay. ( 7 ) WE have heard Shri D. P. S. Chauhan, counsel for the petitioner in writ Petition No. 14960 of 1984, Shri Rishi Ram, appearing for Shiv Nath singh respondent in both the petitions, Shri M P. Singh, counsel for the State cane Service Authority, Shri P. P. Srivastava, for the petitioner in the other petition and the Additional Chief Standing Counsel. We also had the benefit of hearing the learned Advocate General. ( 8 ) BEFORE proceeding to deal with the points raised in these petitions, which were heard together it would be helpful to make a brief reference to the relevant statutory provisions. Final authority of a Cooperative Society vests in the general body of its members in general meeting. Section 28 of the Act lays down that subject to the provisions of tbe Act and the Rules the final authority of a Co-operative Society shall vest in the general body of its members in general meeting. Sub-section (1) of Section 29 provides that the management of every Co-operative Society shall vest in the Committee of management constituted in accordance wtth the Act, the Rules and the bye-laws. The Committee shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be conferred or imposed by the Act, Rules and bye-laws. According to sub-section (2) read with Rule 445 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Rules, the term of the elected members of the Committee of Management is three Cooperative years. The Committee shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be conferred or imposed by the Act, Rules and bye-laws. According to sub-section (2) read with Rule 445 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Rules, the term of the elected members of the Committee of Management is three Cooperative years. Sub-section (3) of Section 29 is material and it reads as under :"it shall be the duty of the Committee of Management to take steps before the expiry of its term for election of members of the committee of Management as provided in Section 32 an annual general meeting, and the members so elected shall replace the members whose term expires under sub-section (2) : provided that the State Government may by notification direct that in respect of such class of Co-operative Societies as may be specified, the superintendence, direction, control and conduct of elections of the member and Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Committees of Management shall vest in the Registrar and such election may be held otherwise than in any meeting, notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b) of Section 32. " ( 9 ) BY Section 2 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 1983 (U. P. Act S of 1983) sub-sections (4) to (6) of Section 29 wete re-enacted. They were given retxospective effect commencing on December 28, 1981 [vide section 1 (2)]. In so far as relevant sub-sections (4) to (6), as re-enacted, provide as follows : "4. (a) Where, for any reason whatsoever, the election of the elected members of the Committee of Management has not taken place or could not take place before the expiry of the term of elected members, the Committee of Management shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Act or the Rules, or the bye-laws of the Society, cease to exist on the expiry of such term. (b) On or as soon as may be after the expiry of such term, the Registrar shall appoint an Administrator or a Committee of Administrators (hereinafter, in this Section, referred to as the committee) for the management of the affairs of the Society until the reconstitution of the Committee of Management in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Rules and the bye-laws of the Society, and the Registrar shall have the power to change the Administrator or, as the case may be, any member of the Committee or to appoint a Committee in place of an Administrator or vice versa from time to time : provided that any Administrator appointed under sub-section (4), as it stood prior to the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative societies (Amendment) Act, 1983, shall be deemed to have been duly appointed and no action or power exercised or function performed by him shall be deemed to be invalid or shall be called in question in any Court on the ground of any defect in his appointment as such or on the ground that the Committee of Management was not reconstituted within time or the terms of his office was not duly extended. XXXX XXXX XXXX 5. The Administrator of the Committee appointed under subjection (4) shall, subject to any directions which the Registrar may from time to time give, have the power to perform all or any of the functions of the Committee of Management or of any officer of the Society and shall be deemed for all purposes under thit Act, the Rules and the bye-laws of the Society tc be the Committee of management and the Chairman of such Committee shall exercise the powers and perform the functions of the Chairman of the committee of Management. 6. 6. The Administrator or the Committee, as the case may be, appointed under sub section (4) shall, as soon as may be, but not later than the expiry of one year from the date of appointment, arrange for the reconstitution of the Committee of Management in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the Rules and the bye-laws of the Society to take over the management of the Society from the Administrator of the Committee, as the case may be t provided that an Administrator, referred to in the proviso to clause (b)of sub-section (4), shall arrange for reconstitution of the Committee of Management within one year of his initial appointment or up to june 30,1983, whichever be later ; provided further that where an Administrator is replaced by a Committee or a Committee by an Administrator as provided in clause (b) of sub-section (4), the period of one year shall count from the date the administrator or the Committee, as the case may be, was origir ally appointed t provided also that the provisions of the proviso to sub-section (3) of this section shall apply in respect of reconstitution of the Gommittee of management under this sub-section. Explanation. Notwithstanding that the process of election may have commenced before the appointment of Administrator or the Committee under sab-section (4), a fresh process of election shall commence after such appointment. ( 10 ) THE date appearing in the first proviso to sub-section (6) has been changed by successive legislative enactments from time to time the latest being the U. P. Co-operative Societies (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 1986 (U. P. Ordinance No. 14 of 1986) published on December 29, 1986, whereby June 30,1987, has been substituted in the aforementioned proviso to sub-section (6 ). ( 11 ) SHRI D. P. S. Chauhan contends that in view of the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 29, there cannot be an Administrator appointed in respect of a notified Co operative Society. It is not in dispute that in respect of the federation there is notification of the State Government dated June 15,1978, under this proviio. The argument advanced is that in respect of the Federation since it it placed in the category of a notified Co-operative Society. It is not in dispute that in respect of the federation there is notification of the State Government dated June 15,1978, under this proviio. The argument advanced is that in respect of the Federation since it it placed in the category of a notified Co-operative Society. the resposibllity for holding elections of the Committee of Management is laid on the registrar and to such a Society provision contained in sub-section (4) (b) for the appointment of an Admiaistrator or Committee of Administrators may not apply. The contention, in our opinion, is untenable. The proviso to sub-section (3) was inserted by the U. P. Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Art, 1977 (U. P. Act 17 of 1971 ). Sub-section (4) (b) was introduced in the statuts book, as mentioned above, by the U. P. (Amendment) Act, 1983 (U. P. Act 5 of 1983) and is unqualified in the sense that it does not lay down expressly or by implication that it shall not apply to the case of a Co-operative Society, which is notified under the proviso to sub-section (3 ). There is, in other words, no exception made in sub section (4) or anywhere for that matter in tail behalf in relation to a notified Co-operative Society. The provision made in sub-section (4) is of general application. If election is not held of a Committes of Management within the prescribed term, the Committee shall cease to exist irrespective of whether the Co-operative Society is notified or not. Upon the expiry of the term of the Committee, the Registrar acquires the power under sub-section (4) (b) to appoint Administrator or a Committee of Administrators irrespective of the character of the Society. The language being plain and capable of one interpretation only we will not be justified in reading into the words of the Act a meaning which does not follow, inter alia, from the language used by the Legislature. As clarified in sub-section (5) the Administrator or the Committee of Administrators, as the case may be, occupy the position of the Committee of Management. As such the Administrator is entrusted with the conduct of the entire business and administration of the society. The proviso to sub-section (3) is in reference to the holding of the elections alone but this is not the whole function which the Committee has to discharge. The Committee of Management is the executive through which the co-operative Society functions. As such the Administrator is entrusted with the conduct of the entire business and administration of the society. The proviso to sub-section (3) is in reference to the holding of the elections alone but this is not the whole function which the Committee has to discharge. The Committee of Management is the executive through which the co-operative Society functions. 1 he entire management of the Society vests in the Administrator by virtue of his being placed in the position of the Committee of management. The Committee of Management has such powers and duties as may subject to the provisions of the Act and the rules be laid down in the bye-laws of the Society [vide Rule 113 read with Section 29 (1)]. The Legislature could not have intended a vacuum to be created in the cast of a notified Co-operative Society upon the terms of its Committee of Managment expiring. Clause (e) of sub-section (4) referred to by the learned counsal says only that so long as no Administrator is appointed under clause (b), the secretary of the Managing Director, as the case may be, of the Society shall be incharge only of the corrent duty of the Committee of Management. This clearly is by way of a stop gap arrangement and neither the Secretary nor the managing Director takes place of the Committee of Management as such. The general body cannot step in either since the final authority vested in the general body under Section 28 is expressly subject to what is laid down in Section 29 and the other provisions relevant in this respect. The expression, subject to convey the idea of a provision yielding place to another provision or provition to which it is made subject [chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram. (1986) 4 SCC 447 at page 478 : AIR 1987 SC 117 at pages 134, 135} disputed connotation in the judicial context. Where there is specific provision contained in Section 29 (4) (b) to cover the exigency of a committed of Management having become defunct the Society would need functiin in accordant with the relevant provisions contained in Section 29 itself. Where there is specific provision contained in Section 29 (4) (b) to cover the exigency of a committed of Management having become defunct the Society would need functiin in accordant with the relevant provisions contained in Section 29 itself. The object behind enacting the proviso to sub-section (3) would appear to be that in respect oi the more important categories of Co-operative Societies, the responsibility for elections be laid on the Registrar himsell whereby an administrator seekiog to prolong his continuance unduly is averted and the normal fuaotioning brought about through the process of elections. It would not follow, however, that in the case of a notified Co-operative Society, there may be BO Administrator appointed by the Registrar to carry out the powers and duties of the Committee of Management for so long as the Committee of management has not been reconstituted through the process of the elections. ( 12 ) GRIEVANCE raised by Shri Chauhan is directed against the appointment of the Cane Commissioner as the Administrator under Section 29 (4) (b ). the order made by the Registrar is dated June 30,1983 (vide Annexure 2 ). The objections raised are that by virtue of Section 3 (2) (3) the cane Commissioner is the Registrar, Co-operative Cane Societies and he could not have appointed himself as the Administrator. We are not required any longer to sit in judgment over the legality or propriety of this order of the Registrar the reason being that during the pendency of this petition, as stated above, the Registrar has, by order made on May 16,1986, changed the Administrator and Shiv Nath singh responden is now the Administrator appointed by him replacing the cane Commissioner. With regard to the validity of the appointment of Shiv nath Singh as the Administrator we will come up later. On account of the cane Commissioner ceasing to be the Administrator with effect from May 16,1986, the relief (a) sought by Raghuvir Singh in his petition is rendered infructuous. The Gaae Commissioner is no longer in possession or use of the office. The law is settled that the quo warranto or a proceeding in the nature thereof lies only against one who is in possession and user of the public office [ferres : Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies, page 169]. The Gaae Commissioner is no longer in possession or use of the office. The law is settled that the quo warranto or a proceeding in the nature thereof lies only against one who is in possession and user of the public office [ferres : Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies, page 169]. ( 13 ) THE other contention of Shri Chauhan is that the first proviso to sub-section (6) of section 29 cannot avail the Administrator in this case enabling him thereby to maiatain that the elections might be held at any time within june 30 1987, in respect of the Committee of Management of the Federation. There is evidently force in this part of the argument, f he first proviso to sub-section (6) relates to the Administrator referred to in the proviso to sub-section (4) (b ). The latter pertains to Administrator appointed under sub-section (4)prior to the commencement of the U, P. Act 5 of 1983. We have mentioned already that sub-section (4) was re-enacted with effect from Cecember 23, 1981, by the U, P. Act 5 of 1983. Th e Administrater in this case having been appointed on June 80, 1983, this was not prior io the relevant date (December 23, 1981) and, therefore, it follows that ths Administrator in this case cannot fall back on the first proviso to sub-section (6), Nor may it be legitimately contended for or on behalf of the respondents that since Shiv Nath Singh has been appointed the Administrator on May 16, 1986, replacing the Cane Commissioner in capacity as the Admiaistrator, the period of one year contemplated under sub-section (6) of Section 29 be calculated to run with effect from May 16,1986. The reason is that where an Administrator replaces the Administrator originally appointed, there being the chain of succession, it is in continuity and the period laid down in sub-section (6) remains unextended on this account. ( 14 ) LEARNED counsel challenges then the vires of the Regulations. The reason is that where an Administrator replaces the Administrator originally appointed, there being the chain of succession, it is in continuity and the period laid down in sub-section (6) remains unextended on this account. ( 14 ) LEARNED counsel challenges then the vires of the Regulations. Section 122 (1) of the Act empowers the State Government to constitute an Authority in such manner as may be prescribed ior the recruitment, training and disciplinary control of the employees of Co operative Societies and the State government may require such authority to frame Regulations regarding the recruitment, emoluments, tems and conditions of service including disciplinaty control of such employees apart from and settlement of disputes between an employee of a Co-operative Society and the Society. In accordance with sub-section (2) of section 122 the Regulations framed under sub-section (1) shall be subject to the approval of the State Government and shall, alter such approval being published in the Gazette, take effect from the date of such publication superseding any Regulations made under Section 121. Sim Chauhan submits that there is no manner prescribed in the U P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968, in which the Authority envisaged under Section 122 (1) is to bs constituted and, therefore, the constitution of the Authority by the State Government is vitiated. We are clearly of opinion that the consistution of the Authority is not rendered illegal due to the absence of any rules f rained on the subject. The expression in such manner as may be preseribed should be construed to mean that in case there is a manner specified in the rule, that has to be observed in implying thereby that in case the rules are silent, there may not be the Authority constituted. In Surinder Singh v. Central Government, [ (1986) 4 SCC 667 at p. . 673 : AIR 1986 SC 2166 at p 2169] the Supreme Court observed :"where a statute confers powers on aa authority to do certain acts or exercise power in respect of certain matters, subject to rules, the exercise of power conferred by the statute does not depend on the existence of rules unless the statute expressly provides for the same. In other words framing of the rules is not condition precedent to the exercise of the power expressly and unconditionally conened by the statute. In other words framing of the rules is not condition precedent to the exercise of the power expressly and unconditionally conened by the statute. The expression "subject to the rules" only means, in accordance with the rules, if any. If rules are framed, the powers so conferred on authority could be exercised in accordance with these rules. But if no rules are framed there is no void and the authority is not precluded from exercising the power conferred by the statute. " ( 15 ) IT It argued also that the State Government did not require the authority constituted under Section 122 (1) to frame the Regulations and, therefore, the Regulation in question are incompetent. This also is devoid of merit. The notification made by the State Government under Section 122 (1)dated January 21,1970, reads as under: -"in exercise of powers under sub-section (1) of Secfion 122 of the Uttar pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (U. P. Act No. 11 of 1966), the Government is pleased to constitute the Cane Commissioner, U. P. as the Authority competent for performing the functions mentioned in the said sub-section in respect of the employees of the Co-operative cane Unions which includes the U. P. Co-operative Cane Unions Federation Limited, Lucknow. " ( 16 ) THIS also is the content of the notification dated February 7, 1973, upon which the petitioner relies (vide Annexure-1 to the petition ). A perusal of Section 122 (1) bears out that among the functions required to be discharged by the Authority is the framing of Regulations. When the State Government notifies that the Authority is constituted for performing the functions mentioned in the said sub section, this necessarily is inclusive of the requirement to frame the Regulations. Nothing may even remotely be claimed to be suggestive of exclusion of this part of the functions entrusted to the Authority under the statutory provision. Moreover, the Regulations framed by the Authority were approved by the State Government as contemplated under sub-section (2) of section 122 which denotes also that the State Government required he Authority to draw the said Regulations and these came to be published by the Authority subsequent to the approval of the State Government being accorded. Moreover, the Regulations framed by the Authority were approved by the State Government as contemplated under sub-section (2) of section 122 which denotes also that the State Government required he Authority to draw the said Regulations and these came to be published by the Authority subsequent to the approval of the State Government being accorded. ( 17 ) ANOTHER submission from the petitioners side in this connection is that the text of the Regulations was drawn in the English language and not Hindi in devnagri script and hence this is invalid. This, however, does not stand to test of scrutiny. Under the proviso to Article 345 of the Constitution the English language shall continue to be used for official purpose, within State until the state legislature otherwise provides by law. Article 348 (1) (iii) lays down, inter alia, that until Parliament by law otherwise provides the authoritative text of regulations issued under any law made by the State Legislature shall be is the Engliih language. Clause (3) of Article 348 provides that if the State lagislature adopts Hindi as the language for these purposes, a translation shall be published in the English Language in the Gazette and shall be deemed to be the authoritative text thereof. The U. P. Official Languages Act, 1951, in Section 2 provides that Hindi in Devnagri script shall be the language used in respect of the following :" (A) (i) Ordinance promulgated under Article 213 of the Constitution ; (ii) orders, rules, regulations and bye-laws issued by the State Government under the Constitution of India or under any law made by parliament of the Legislature of the State; and (b) all or any of the official purposes of the State. " ( 18 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents have contended not without force that Section 2 (a) (ii) is not attracted because it is not a case of Regulations issued by the State Government. The Authority (Cane Commissioner)constituted under Section 122 (1) of the Act framed the Regulations; to this approval was accorded by tbe State Government whereafter it was published in the official Gazette dated October 18, 1975 by tbe said Authority. The issue of the Regulations is thus by the Authority (Cane Commissoner), and not the state Government. The Authority (Cane Commissioner)constituted under Section 122 (1) of the Act framed the Regulations; to this approval was accorded by tbe State Government whereafter it was published in the official Gazette dated October 18, 1975 by tbe said Authority. The issue of the Regulations is thus by the Authority (Cane Commissoner), and not the state Government. It might be said that Section 2 (b) applies the issue of the regulations by the Authority being nonetheless an official purpose of the State. ( 19 ) THE position, however, remains that tbe regulations are not rendered invalid on this account. Article 348 (3) is of little relevance there admittedly being no Hindi text of the Regulations. Article 345 enacts a permissive rovision and is expressed in the affirmative. The effect of the proviso to this article is that even after the adoption by the State of any regional language or hindi, English can continue to be used unless the Legislature of tbe State otherwise provides by such a law, that is to say, expressly excludes the use of english. It does not say that when Hindi or any other language has been adopted in use in tbe State as the official language, then the use of English shall be barred altogether so as to render invalid any official proceedings done in that language. [dayabhat Poonabhai v. Natwarlal S. Talati etc. , AIR 1957 Madh Pra 1]. In Harihar Prasad Tripathi v. District Magistrate, Mirzapur etc. , [ air 1961 All 365 ], the challenge was to a notification Issued by the State Government in english language under Section 36 of the U. P. Town Areas Act, 1914. The view taken by Dwivedi, J. with which we are in respectful agreement was that the English notification was not invalid Article 345 does not declare that "after cnsctment of a law by a State Legislature adopting Hindi as the languags for any of official purposes of the State any order made by the State and expressed in the English language shall be void. Nor does the U. P. Official language Act say so. Nor does the U. P. Official language Act say so. " It was observed t"it has been held that when the provisions of an Act relate to the performance of a public duty and the case is such (hat to hold null and void acts done in neglect of this duty would work serious general inconvenience, or injustice to persons who have no control over those entrusted with the duty, such provisions are directory only, the neglect of them not affecting the validity of the acts done. (See bixwanath Khemka v, Emperor, [1945 FCR 99 : AIR 1945 FC 67]; j. K. Gas Plan Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v Emperor [1947 FCR 141 : air 1947 FC 38] ; Dattairaya Moreshwar v. State of Bombay [ 1952 scr 612 ; AIR 1952 SC 181 ] ; and State of U. P, v. Manbodhan lal, [ 1958 SCR 533 : AIR 1957 SC 912 ]. "[see also Seervai: Constitutional Law, Volume II, 3rd Ed. page 2148]. In om Prakash Maurya v. U. P. Co-operative Sugar Factories Federation, [1987 uplbec 50 : AIR 1986 SC 1844 ] the Supreme Court upheld the applicability of these Regulations (as amended) in preference to the U. P. Co-operative sugar Factories Federation Employees Service Rules, 1976, framed under section 121 to the case of the U. P. Co-operative Sugar Factories Federation and others. ( 20 ) IT was next urged by Shri Chauhan, the learned counsel, that the nomination made of Shiv Nath Singh and Durga Prasad Misra respondents by the Administrator on July 4/5, 1983, (vide Annexure 3) as members of the state Cane Service Authority is invalid It will be recalled that the State Cane service Authority is one of the recruiting and appointing authorities provided for under Regulation 35. The composition of this body is laid in Regulation 36 (4) and we have already trade mention of the duies and powers entrusted to it under the Regulations. Cane Commissioner is Ex officio Chairman thereof; managing Director of the Federation is ex officio Member ; an officer nominated by the Cane Commissioner is Secretary. Regulation 36 (4) (2) refers to I"two representatives of the Committee of Management of Federation to be nominated by the Committee of Management of the Federation. Cane Commissioner is Ex officio Chairman thereof; managing Director of the Federation is ex officio Member ; an officer nominated by the Cane Commissioner is Secretary. Regulation 36 (4) (2) refers to I"two representatives of the Committee of Management of Federation to be nominated by the Committee of Management of the Federation. " ( 21 ) TWO questions have been raised in this connection, namely, (1)whether there could be nomination made by the Administrator and (2) whether the respondents, who are no longer members of the Committee of Management of the Federation, could be nominated. As to (1), upon the term of the Committe of Management expiring, the Administrator shall be deemed for all purposes under this Act, the rules and the bye-laws of the Society, to be the committee of Management: vide Section 29 (5 ). This thus creates a legal fiction. It is settled that when a person is deemed to be something the only meaning possible is that whereas he is not in reality that something the Act requires him to be treated as if he were Commr. of I. T. Bombay v. Bombay trust Corpn. Ltd. [air 1930 PC 54]. This was approved by the Supreme Court in K. Kamraja Nadar v. Kunju Thever, [ air 1958 SC 687 ]. The effect of legal fiction is that a position which otherwise would not obtain is deemed to obtain under these circumstances. The word deemed also came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Addl, I. T. Officer v. E Alfred, [ air 1962 SC 663 ]. It was held that when a thing is deemed to be something else, it is to be treated as if it is that thing though, in fact it is not. Nothing contained in section 29 or the context before us warrants a detraction from the powers (including the power to nominate) which the Administrator could exercise as a substitute for the Committee of Management. ( 22 ) IN regard to (2), the respondents in question were members of the committee of Management of the Federation and as such its representatives nominated to the State Cane Service Authority prior to June 30,1983. The term of the Committee of Management having expired the Administrator renominated them under Regulation 36 (4) as his representatives. ( 22 ) IN regard to (2), the respondents in question were members of the committee of Management of the Federation and as such its representatives nominated to the State Cane Service Authority prior to June 30,1983. The term of the Committee of Management having expired the Administrator renominated them under Regulation 36 (4) as his representatives. Upon careful consideration we are unable to subscribe to the proposition that the nominees could only be such as are members of the Committee of Management. representative, according to Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th Ed. page 1170 means t "one who represents or stands in the place of another. One who represents other or another in a special capacity, as an agent, and term is interchangeable with "agent". [sunset Mill and Grain Co. v. Anderson, 39 Gal. 2d 773,249 p. 2d 24, 27]. A person chosen by the people to represent their several interests in a legislative body ; e. g. representative elected to service in Congress from a State congressional district. "representative" includes an agent, an officer of a corporation or association, and a trustee, executor or administrator of an estate, or any other person empowered to act for another. U. C. C. S. 1-201 (35 ). " ( 23 ) A look at Regulation 36 shows that wherever it has intended to confine the representation to contain categories it was so spelled out. In relation to District Cane Service Authority, for instance, it is provided "one representative of the Federation from among the members of its general body" and one representative "from among the Chairman of the Unions of the district". There is no such restrictive qualification contained in Regulation 36 (4) (2 ). The Regulation Making Authority must be credited with the awareness that occasion may arise when the Administrator alone constitutes the Committee of Management and there is none else as its member. We are reluctant to construe the provisions in a manner which might render this part of the statutory regulations defunct rather than impart vitality to it. In the absence of compelling situation arising the Court adopts a purposive construction, it avoids a destructive analysis; where there exists ambiguity, the duty of the Court is to ascertain the true intent and give effect to this so that avoidable anomalies or absurdities are averred. In the absence of compelling situation arising the Court adopts a purposive construction, it avoids a destructive analysis; where there exists ambiguity, the duty of the Court is to ascertain the true intent and give effect to this so that avoidable anomalies or absurdities are averred. Sbri M. P. Singh is right in contending, in our opinion, that this Regulation is capable of being so interpreted as to include representation even though P. non-member. A person who may reflect the opinion of the Administrator (Committee of Management) on different issues concerning the affairs of the Federation and subserves its interest may be the representative within the meaning of the rule. For whatever he does he remains responsible to the Administrator and is as such removable in case cf unsuitability. The Court cannot be oblivious to the nature of duties assigned to the State Cane Service Authority in the matter of administrative day to day control over the specified categories of large sections of employees and it should not be unmindful of the consequences which may otherwise follow. We are conscious of Regulation 38 which prescribes that if there has been any defect or vacancy in the constitution of any Zonal, District, Regional or State auth rity either in the beginning or during their tenure and the same has not been removed, notwithstanding such defect or vacancy all acts done by these committees and their meetings shall be valid and it will be deemed that no such defect or vacancy existed. But this does not supply a reasoning worth acceptance for not giving to Regulation 36 (4) the meaning which it fairly bean. In Statesman (P) Ltd. v. H. R. Deb, [ air 1968 SC 1495 t 1968 Lab IC 1525], it It observed :". . . . . . . . . THE High Court in a quo warranto proceeding should be slow to pronounce upon the matter unles s there is a clear infringement of the law. " ( 24 ) THIS may be considered from another angle also. In order for the writ of quo warranto to lie the respondent must be one holding office of a public nature. It implies a delegation of a portion of the sovereign power. It is a trust conferred by public authority for a public purpose embracing the ideas of tenure, duration, emoluments and duties. In order for the writ of quo warranto to lie the respondent must be one holding office of a public nature. It implies a delegation of a portion of the sovereign power. It is a trust conferred by public authority for a public purpose embracing the ideas of tenure, duration, emoluments and duties. According to Ferris, the determining factor, the test is, whether the office involves a delegation of some of the solemn functions of government, either executive, legislative of Judicial, to be exercised by the bolder for the public benefit. Only when a person holds an "independent substantive public officer, or franchise, or liberty", he may be called upon to show, by the writ of quo warranto, his title to the office, franchise or liberty, [university of Mysore v. Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491 ]. Regulation 36 does not create a post or office. It merely authorises the committee of Management to depute its two representatives. A representative as such does not hold a public office created under a statute, or the Constitution [see Jageam v. Gwalior Town and Country Development Authority, AIR 1987 madh Pra 11 (DB); Dr. S. Mahadeyam v. Dr. S. Balasundaram, 1986 Lab 10 2043 (Mad)]. ( 25 ) THIS takes us to the challenge made in Writ Petition No. 15543 of 1986 against the change of the Administrator by order of the Registrar dated may 16,1986, which, to our mind, need not detain us long. Till date there has been no election of the Committee of Management, the Vice-Chairman or the Chairman. There is no other mechanism envisaged in the statutes through which the Federation may cany on its ordinary course of business in the absence of the Administrator. It may not be doubted that the power of the registrar under Section 29 (4) (b) is exercisable from time to time as and when the occasion arises. In Saheb Singh v. Kashi Nath Mishra, [1986 All LJ 477] the bench enunciated the position thus :"it is implicit in Section 29 that the right, if any, acquired under the appointment to the office is subject to be determined by the Registrar. Such a precarious right is created from the very beginning. And if the right itself is determinable under the statute, there is really no interference with it. The Registrar has an undoubted power to change the Administrator from time to time. Such a precarious right is created from the very beginning. And if the right itself is determinable under the statute, there is really no interference with it. The Registrar has an undoubted power to change the Administrator from time to time. By the exercise of this power there is no interference with any right, including civil right, of an Administrator. Even if there be such an interference it is a necessary incidence to the exercise of the statutory power. " ( 26 ) IN the matter of choice of the person, to act as Administrator there are no mala fides attributed to the Registrar. The person so appointed has not been a stranger to the affairs of the Federation. He was a member of the committee of Management and a member of the Federations general body. On August 21,1982, he was elected unanimously Vice-Chairman of the Federation and continued as such till June 30, 1983. There is not shown to exist conflict between the respondents, interest, if any, and the duties he is enjoined to perform in carrying on the business of the Federation as the administrater. ( 27 ) WO are set impressed with tbe argument put forward by Shit Chauhan to the effect that tbe Administrator appointed under Section 29 (4) (b) has necessarily to be a member of the Committee of Management. No such limitation or qualification may be found ircorporated expressly or by implication in Section 29. The reference made to Rule 453, which pertains to disqalifications far membership of Committee of Management is of no relevance in this context. In Section 35 (3) (b) there is mention made of an Administrator or Administrators "but need not necessarily be the members of the Society. " From the absence of these words in Section 29 we are unable to deduce that Administrator under Section 29 (4) (b) must necessarily be a member of the Society. If he is a member of the Society there is no disqualification arising on this account but in case he is not, he is not ineligible to be appointed Administrator under Section 29 (4) (b ). To recapitulate, there is no bar to the appointment of an Administrator of the Federation under Section 29 (4) (b) on account of the Federation being a notified Society within the meaning of the proviso to sub-section (3 ). To recapitulate, there is no bar to the appointment of an Administrator of the Federation under Section 29 (4) (b) on account of the Federation being a notified Society within the meaning of the proviso to sub-section (3 ). With effect from May 16,1986, Shiv Nath Singh has replaced the Cane Commissioner as the Administrator. In the matter of holding of elections, the benefit of the first proviso to sub-section (6) is not available to the Administrator in this candse. Under Section 122 (1) the State Government has on January 21, 1970, constituted the cane Commissioner as the Authority to control the employees of the federation and its constituent units. It is of no consequence that there are no rules framed to specify the manner in which the Authority is to be constituted. The Authority was required to perform the functions referred to in Section 122 (1) which includes the framing of Regulations. The Regulations were published by the Authority after these were approved by the State Government. These are not rendered invalid due to the text being in the English language and not hindi in Devnagri script. Under the Regulations the State Cane Service authority has to comprise of among others two representatives of the management of the federation nominated by the Committee of Management. The administrator could in capacity as such nominate tbe representatives though in the nature of things they would not be members of the Committee of management. The last question which survives and is common to both these petitions it that of the elections to the Committee of Management of the Federation and the constituent units not having taken place thus far. The delay is obviously considerable. Under the interim order passed ex pane on January 3,1985. the court directed that the elections be held within three months. On January 1,1986, after hearing the parties the Court directed that the elections take place within four months. On April 1, 1985, and thereafter on September 20,1986, the Registrar wrote to the District Magistrates for the needful being done in this direction as required under Rule 439 (2), but the purpose unfortunately remains unrealised. On January 1,1986, after hearing the parties the Court directed that the elections take place within four months. On April 1, 1985, and thereafter on September 20,1986, the Registrar wrote to the District Magistrates for the needful being done in this direction as required under Rule 439 (2), but the purpose unfortunately remains unrealised. The Federation is placed in the category of specially notified Co-operative Societies under the proviso to Section 29 (3) taking into consideration the nature of the socially beneficial duties and powers it has to discharge in the interest of vast sections of the public. The responsibility cast for the superintendence, direction, control and conduct of these elections ia squarely upon the Registrar. This may not be side tracked under the guise of insubstantial grounds. The procedure may be complicated due to the elections involved of the numerous Co-operative Cane Development Unions, but the exercise cannot remain indefinitely postponed on this plea. The inordinate delay undermines the democratic functioning of tbe Society. The Co operative philosophy of the Society must rest on universal association democratically governed, conditioned by equity and personal liberty. In the words of the Cooperative planning Committee appointed by the Central Government :"co-OPERATIVE is a form of economic democracy inasmuch as the constitution of a co-operative Society is based on the equality of vote of each member. "one man one vote" is the ruling principle, no member having more votes on the strength of bis stake in the institution. The membership of a Co operative organization is open, without restriction, to all persons who can derive a benefit from it. Further, the democratic outlook is reflected in the principle governing the distribution of profits. Capital gets only a regulated moderate dividend, the surplus being distributed among members, in proportion to their dealings with the undertaking. Rendering tbe best service to the members and not earning the highest profit is the aim set before a Co-operative organization. "underlying scheme of the Act as enunciated also in the Statement of objects and Reasons is "the association of non-officials to the maximum possible extent in the management of a Cooperative Society. For this purpose it has been provided that the Chairman of the Committee of Management of such societies will be elected from amongst the elected members of the Committee. For this purpose it has been provided that the Chairman of the Committee of Management of such societies will be elected from amongst the elected members of the Committee. This aims at enabling the weaker sections of the public (in this case, the sugar cane growers) to derive the benefit of the Co-operatives. Among the Co-operative principles is specifically included "democratic constitution of the society" (Section 4 ). All that remains illusory where the Registrar fails or neglects to carry out the public duty laid upon him under the proviso to section 29 (3) of the Act read with Pule 439 (1) in the true spirit. The duty in questioa is to perform the positive act required by law. It is a case of imposition of a positive duty upon a public authority. Words like shall or may, it has been said, although they raise presumptions are not conclusive aid tbe purpose of the particular statutory provisions must be examined (Allications for Judicial Review ; Grahame Aldous John Alder p. 53 ). As members of the general body, the petitioner have justifiable interest to secure a resumption of democratic functioning of the Federation and the affiliated Cane Unions. In comptroller and Auditor General of India, [ (1986) 2 SCC 679 at p. 692 : AIR 1987 SG 517) their Lordships of the Supreme Court laid down ;"there is thus no doubt that the High Courts in India exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or to pass order and give necessary directions where the government or a public authority has failed to txercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy decision of the government or has exercised such discretion mala fide or on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring the relevant considerations and. materials or in such a manner as to frustrate the object of conferring such discretion or the policy for implementing which such discretion has been conferred. materials or in such a manner as to frustrate the object of conferring such discretion or the policy for implementing which such discretion has been conferred. In all such cases and in any other fit and proper case a High Court can, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, issue a writ of mandamus or a writ the nature of mandamus or pass orders and give directions to compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the government or a public authority, and in a proper case, in order to prevent injustice resulting to the concerned parties, the Court may itself pass an order or give directions which the government or the public authority should have passed or given had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion. "viewed ia the light of the discussion made above, we direct issue of writ of mandamus requiring the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U. P. respondent to ensure that the elections of the members, Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the committee of Management of the U, P. Co-operative Cane Unions Federation and the U. P Co-operative Cane Development Unions do take place in accordance with law expeditiously not later than June 30,1987, so that these Societies re-start the normal functioning at the commencement of the Co-operative year 1987-88 in any case and to take all requisite steps in this direction. The petitions are allowed in part only accordingly. In the circumstances there will be no order as to the costs. Petitions partly allowed. .