V. D. GYANI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Shri Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Bhargava, learned Government Advocate for the respondent, who appears on a show-cause notice issued by the Court. The respondent has filed reply to the notice. ( 2 ) BY this petition the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 26-12-1988, passed by the respondent, restraining the petitioner from acting as representative of the Society in exercise of power under Section 67 (1) of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act (for short, the Act ). ( 3 ) SHORT facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that a registered Co-operative Society known as Jaora Sahakari Vipnan Avem prakriya Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Jaora it there in village Bardiya-Goyal and the petitioner is a member thereof. On 30-11-1988 he was elected to the Society. On the same day Nanda s/o Bhaggaji was also elected as representative of the Society at Jaora. The petitioner has filed copy of the proceeding dated 30-11-1988. Be was elected for a period of five years. There is also a Marketing Society, known as Jaora Sahakari Vipnan Avem prakriya Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Jaora and the Society of which the petitioner is a Member, was elected as Chairman. Other Member Societies have their representatives to the Marketing Society at Jaora. The petitioner's case is that Nanda s/o Bhaggaji who was representative of the petitioner Society to the Marketing Society at Jaora, had tendered his resignation on 4th December, 1988, which was accepted by the Society. This resignation has been filed as Annexure-D and the proceedings of the Society dated 17-12-1988 are filed as Annexure-E. According to the petitioner, he was unanimously elected representative to the Marketing Society at Jaora. This proceeding is filed as Annexure-F. ( 4 ) THE petitioner filed his objection to the Returning Officer on the eve of election along with a copy ot the Resolution, Annexure-F, and requested him to include his name in the Voters List, in place of Nanda s/o Bhaggaji, who had resigned from the post of representative to the Marketing Society at Jaora. ( 5 ) IT is the petitioner's case that the respondent under the influence of some political leaders, including the sitting M. L. A. , came to the village bardiya-Goyal and obtained an application under Section 67 (1} of the Act. The impugned order has been passed on this application. ( 5 ) IT is the petitioner's case that the respondent under the influence of some political leaders, including the sitting M. L. A. , came to the village bardiya-Goyal and obtained an application under Section 67 (1} of the Act. The impugned order has been passed on this application. ( 6 ) WHILE the respondent has not disputed the resignation submitted by nanda s/o Bhaggaji, it is added that this resignation was obtainad by practicing fraud, as Nanda s/o Bhaggaji is an illiterate man. ( 7 ) THE impugned order, filed as Annexure-C by the petitioner as also the copy of the application filed by Nanda under Section 64 of the Act, does not show that the petitioner was made a party in his individual capacity. No doubt be has been named at serial No. 2 in the application, Annexure-R1, but the party impleaded is the Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Bardiya-Goyal through the petitioner. No meterial has been placed on record by the respondent to show that the petitioner, before passing the impugned order, had been served with a notice. Apparently the order is an ex-parte one. ( 8 ) THE short question, which fails for consideration is, whether in the facts and circumstances as noted above, the] impugned order, restraining the petitioner from acting as a representative to the Marketing Society at jaora, could have been legally passed by the respondent ? ( 9 ) PERUSAL of the impugned order goes to show that it is both, prohibitory as well as mandatory in nature and even directing status quo ante as obtaining on 30-11-1988 to be maintained. Such a composite order, complex in nature directly affecting the legal rights of the petitioner and interfering with the election process of other Marketing Society, not contemplated by either Section 64 or Section 67 of the Act, has been passed by the respondent, that too behind the back of the parties, which is an aggravated situation in the instant case. Such an interim injunction, interferfing with the election process of other Marketing Society is beyond the scope of Sections 64 any 67 of the Act. The impugned order is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The dispute so far as it relates to the petitioner Society, may however, continue. .