JUDGMENT N. N. Mithal, J 1. Aggrieved by the order of the trial court refusing to grant injunction, the plaintiff has come up in appeal. 2. The plaintiff claiming to be the Chairman of Sadhan Sahkari Samiti filed this suit for a permanent injunction and for declaration that order dated 1-3-1988 by which the District Magistrate was appointed Chairman of the Committee of Administrators in place of Smt. Kamlesh Shukla was void and ineffective. The plaintiff also prayed for a temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from giving effect to the said order and from interfering with the working of Smt. Kamlesh Shukla as Chairman of the Committee of Administrators of District Co-operative Rank, Bareilly, respondent no. 2 herein. On being resisted by the respondents the court rejected the application. In appeal, Sri K. N. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has urged that the order of the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bareilly dated 1-3-1988 impugned in the suit was illegal and was motivated by malafides and as such was liable to be set aside. He has in this connection referred to Section 29 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. It deals with the constitution of Committee of Management for managing the various Co-operative Societies in the State. The relevant portion of Section 29 may be quoted here : "29 (4) (a) Where, for any reason whatsoever, 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 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 Administrator (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 : (c) Where a committee is appointed under clause (b) it shall consist of a Chairman and such other members not exceeding eight as may be nominated by the Registrar, out of which at least two shall be Government servants." 3. The argument of the learned counsel was that according to sub-clause (4) (b), the Registrar has only been empowered to change either the Administrator or a member of the Committee Although he can change the entire Committee but he has no power to change the Chairman without touching the remaining members of the Committee. The basis of the argument is that in sub-clause (b) there is no specific mention about the power to remove the Chairman although a specific mention has been made in respect of the Administrator, the Committee and also of the members thereof. He has also referred to sub-clause (c) to emphasize that Chairman has a separate and distinct entity apart from other members of the Committee of Administrators and he has been bestowed with different rights. Reference to sub-clause (5) of this Section, the relevant portion of which reads as under, was also made : "(5) The Administrator or the Committee appointed under sub-section (4) shall...............have the power to perform all or any of the functions of the Committee of Management.........and shall be deemed for all purposes under this Act,........... to 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." 4. to 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." 4. In the light of the provisions of sub-Section (5) the argument was that the Chairman of the Committee of Administrators has been equated with the Chairman of the Committee of Management and in this way, according to Sri Tripathi, he occupies a different position than other members of the Committee of Administrators and cannot therefore be treated just as an ordinary member of the committee. It is true that in sub-clause (4) (b) no specific reference has been made to the Chairman of the Committee of Administrators and from a first look it does appear that the Registrar has no power to remove the Chairman. However, on a reading of the entire provision, it will appear that the Committee of Administrators and the Chairman are not distinct entities. Sub-clause (c) lays down that the Committee shall consist of a Chairman and such other members not exceeding 8. This expression by itself means that all the members of the Committee of Administrator are alike though one of them will of course occupy the position of the Chairman but this is only for purposes of administration. For all other practical purposes, the Chairman is as much a member of the Committee as any other member and, therefore, the power of the Registrar to remove or change any member of the Committee shall also include the power to change the Chairman of the Committee. Sub-clause (c) only prescribes for the manner in which the Committee shall be constituted but it is to be guided by the provisions of sub-clause (4) (b) of Section 29. The power given to the Registrar is very specific and it lays down that he shall have the power to change the Administrator or any member of the Committee. The word 'any' is of some significance. It does not mean only one of the members of the Committee apart from the Chairman. In fact, the Registrar has been conferred the right to remove any member of the Committee whether he be the Chairman or an other ordinary member thereof. The word 'any' is of some significance. It does not mean only one of the members of the Committee apart from the Chairman. In fact, the Registrar has been conferred the right to remove any member of the Committee whether he be the Chairman or an other ordinary member thereof. It is for this purpose perhape that the legislature in its wisdom did not deem it necessary to specifically mention in sub-clause (b) that the Registrar shall also have the power to remove the Chairman. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has, however, very vehemently urged that the entire scheme of the Act deprives participation by the public although that is one of the avowed objects of the whole Act. The Co-operative movement must necessarily involve in its very nature participation by the public at large. Be that as it may, the fact remains that by the passage of time there has been a serious erosion of people's right in their voluntary and free participation in the management of Co-operative Societies. Under the garb of regulating the working of the Societies, the Government has been making inroads into their independent functioning and of public participation in these affairs. However, it is a matter for the legislature to consider and for the peoples representatives to agitate in the matter. The courts do not have the functions to comment upon the wisdom of the legislature in making rules and laying down provision for the functioning of the Co-operative Societies. It is, however, a matter of great significance that the Government should be made aware of this. The public participation in the working and management of the Co-operative Societies ought to be more free so that its working becomes more broad based and peoples participation therein more liberal. This, however, does not make the provision relied upon by the appellant helpful to him. 6. The appellant does not claim any right for being appointed Chairman of the Committee of Administrators nor can he seek any declaration that a particular person should be so appointed. The person directly aggrieved is Smt. Kamlesh Shukla who was the Chairman earlier and has been removed by the order impugned in the suit It has been pointed out that she in fact has filed a writ petition in the High Court but was unable to obtain any stay order in her favour. The person directly aggrieved is Smt. Kamlesh Shukla who was the Chairman earlier and has been removed by the order impugned in the suit It has been pointed out that she in fact has filed a writ petition in the High Court but was unable to obtain any stay order in her favour. It was subsequently that the present suit was filed by the Chairman of a member Society of the Bank. It was contended by the respondents that the appellant had no locus standi to file the suit. However, in my opinion, this objection is without any merit. Even as a Chairman of a member Society, he is entitled and interested in the welfare of the Bank and in that capacity he will have a right to file a suit. However, at this stage, it is not necessary to express any concluded opinion in this matter and this can be left to be decided on the basis of the evidence at the trial of the suit. Thus, in view of the above discussion, I find that the appellant has not been able to establish any prima facie case to entitle him the relief of temporary injunction. 7. Before parting with this case, I think it pertinent to mention that the judgment of the court below does not discuss the various points that had been raised before it. The court has merely enumerated the points urged before it but no decision on any of the points urged there is reflected in the judgment. It is advisable that the court should give reasons for its conclusions on the points urged before it, mere enumeration of the points urged does not suffice. The appellate court must know the reasons on which the lower court's decision is founded. 8. In view of the above, I see no merit in the appeal it is accordingly dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.