JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) HEARD Shri N. C. Jain, counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. ( 2. ) THE District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. , Chhatarpur, is a Co-operative bank and the respondent No. 4 is a duly elected President of the Bank and the Board of directors. The petitioner claims to be an elected Director of the said Bank. The management of the affairs of the Bank vests in the Board of Directors which is a committee as defined in Section 2 (d) of the M P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). A notice was issued under sub-section (2) of Section 53 of the Act to respondent No. 4 in his capacity as President of the Board of Directors requiring cause to be shown as to why the Committee may not be superseded. In the same show cause notice there was an order under sub-section (10) of Section 53 of the act stating that the Board of Directors shall during the pendency of the enquiry function under the supervision of the Collector, Chhatarpur. It is this notice which has been challenged in the present writ petition. ( 3. ) IT was urged by the counsel for the petitioner that before passing the interim order under sub-section (10) of Section 53 of the Act, it was incumbent on the Joint registrar, Co-operative Societies who issued the impugned notice containing the said order under sub-section (10) of Section 53 to have given opportunity of hearing to the committee on principles of natural justice, We find it difficult to agree with this submission. Sub-section (10) of Section 53 contemplates an immediate action in proceedings under Section 53 (1 ). In Union of India vs. J. N. Sinha (A. I. R. 1971 S. C. 40) it was held that rules of natural justice are not embodied rules nor can they be elevated to the position of fundamental rights. Their aim is to secure justice or to prevent miscarriage of justice. These Rules can operate only in areas not covered by any lav validly made. They do not supplant the law but supplement it If a statutory provision can be read consistently with the principles of natural justice, the courts should do so. Their aim is to secure justice or to prevent miscarriage of justice. These Rules can operate only in areas not covered by any lav validly made. They do not supplant the law but supplement it If a statutory provision can be read consistently with the principles of natural justice, the courts should do so. But if a statutory provision either specifically or by necessary implication excludes the application of any rules of natural justice then the court cannot ignore the mandate of the legislature or the statutory authority and read into the concerned provision the principles of natural justice. Whether the exercise of a power conferred should be made in accordance with any of the principles of natural justice or not depends upon the express words of the provision conferring the power, the nature of the power conferred, the purpose for which it is conferred and the effect of the exercise of that power. ( 4. ) A perusal of sub-section (2) of Section 53 of the Act indicates that it contemplates and provides for a show cause notice being given to the Committee before passing the final order of supersession. Sub-section (10) of the same section which provides for an interim order in the nature of the order which has been passed in the instant case, does not make a similar provision of a show cause notice being given. Had the intention of the legislature been to give a notice even before passing an interim order as contemplated by sub-section (10) of Section 53, there was no difficulty in making such a provision. It appears that the intention of the legislature was not to make any provision for issuing a show cause notice before pasting an interim order under subsection (10) of section 53. The reason apparently seems to be that sub-section (10) of Section 53 contemplates immediate action and issuing of a show cause notice and giving opportunity of hearing before passing the interim order may result in frustrating the very purpose of passing the interim order. In these circumstances, in our opinion, the requirement of giving an opportunity of hearing on the principles of natural justice before passing an order under sub-section (10) of Section 53 stands excluded by necessary implication. In these circumstances, in our opinion, the requirement of giving an opportunity of hearing on the principles of natural justice before passing an order under sub-section (10) of Section 53 stands excluded by necessary implication. Consequently the order in the instant case passed under the said sub-section cannot be held to be invalid on the ground of violation of the rules of natural justice. ( 5. ) IT was then urged by the counsel for the petitioner that the notice issued under sub-section (2) of Section 53 of the Act had not been properly served on the Committee. We find it difficult to agree with this submission also. Nothing has been brought to our notice indicating the manner in which such notice is to be served. Respondent No. 4 is admittedly the President of the Board of Directors and notice has been served on him in that capacity. In this view of the matter we do not find any error in the service of the notice which may justify interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. ( 6. ) NO other point has been pressed by the counsel for the petitioner. In the result, we find no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed petition dismissed.