A. G. QURESHI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is the Board of Directors of the tilhan Utpadak Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Momenbarodia, Distt. Shajapur (hereinafter called the Board of Directors ). The Tilhan Utpadak Sahakari sanstha Maryadit (hereinafter called the Sanstha) is a registered Co-oprative Society under the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, i960 (for brievity the Act ). ( 2 ) THE election of the Board of Directors was held in November, 1986 and 8 Directors were elected as Board of Directors of the respondent No. 3 sanstha. The petitioners (a) to (f) as well as the other Directors were also elected as members of the Board. Initially the Board of Directors were elected for a period of 3 years, but by the amendment in the Co-operative societies Act, vide amendment Act 25 of 1988 the period of the Board of directors was extended from 3 years to 5 years. As such the period of the board of Directors is to expire in 1991 ( 3 ) WHEN the Board of Directors started functioning some complaints were received by the Deputy Registrar of the M. P. Co-operative Societies, upon which a show cause notice dated 23-12-87 was issued against the Board of Directors in accordance with the provisions of Section 53 (2) of the Act. By the aforesaid notice the members of the Board of Directors should not be superseded. The Board of Directors, through the President submitted reply to the show cause notice giving their explanation in respect of the allegations made in the show cause notice. After receiving the Explanation the Deputy registrar passed an order under Section 53 (10) of the Act suspending the board of Directors and appointed the Co-operative Extension Officer as the officer-in-charge for the Sansthan. ( 4 ) THEREAFTER the Deputy Registrar, again issued a show cause notice on 4-8-88, the reply to which was filed on 23-8-88 by the Board of Directors. After considering the reply and the allegations the Deputy Registrar passed an order superseding the Board of Dorectors, under Section 53 (1) of the act and consequently a Committee of three persons was appointed for looking after the work of the Sausthan after supersessions. ( 5 ) THE petitioner, tbe Board of Directors through the President submitted an appeal before the Joint Registrar of the Co-operative Societies against the aforesaid order of supersession. This was registered as Appeal no. ( 5 ) THE petitioner, tbe Board of Directors through the President submitted an appeal before the Joint Registrar of the Co-operative Societies against the aforesaid order of supersession. This was registered as Appeal no. 77-16/88-89, who allowed the appeal, vide its order dated 31-1-89 holding that the order of the Deputy Registrar dated l6-9-88 is not liable to be sustained However, it also held that the Board of Directors superseded need not be reinstated and, therefore, elections may be held. It was further directed that in the holding of the new elections the committee constituted under Section 53 (1) shall continue to conduct the Society's working upto 30-4-1989. Aggrieved by the order of the Joint Registrar in appeal in relation to the order of fresh election and non-reinstatement of the Board of directors, this petition has been filed. ( 6 ) THE petition has been resisted by the respondents Nos, 1 and 2 on the ground that there were complaints against the Board of Directors. Therefore, a show cause notice was served upon them on 23-12-87. Actually the appeal of the Board of Directors was allowed because while passing the order of supersession by the Deputy Registrar provisions of Section 53 (1)of the Act were not followed. Therefore, the Joint Registrar has rightly held that the Board of Directors should not be reinstated and, therefore, election should be held. ( 7 ) THE Sansthan the respondent No. 3 has also filed its return supporting the order impugned. ( 8 ) SHRI Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner, urgeg that once the learned Joint Registrar had allowed the appeal under the law, he had no option but to order reinstatement of the Board of Directors. The Joint registrar could not order the holding of fresh election and continue the supersession of the Board of Directors after once having held that the order of supersession passed by the Deputy Registrar is illegal. ( 9 ) ON the other hand, it has been argued by the respondents that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is proper in the circumstances of the case. ( 9 ) ON the other hand, it has been argued by the respondents that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is proper in the circumstances of the case. ( 10 ) AFTER going through the order of the Appellate Authority, the joint Registrar of the Co-operative Society, we find that in paragraph 13, the Appellate Authority has clearly held that neither the order of the deputy Registrar challenged in the appeal dated 16-9-88 deserves to be sustained nor it is advisable to reinstate the Board of Directors. As such in the circumstances of the case, it will be proper to direct the holding of fresh election. Than in paragraph 14 it has been held that the appeal is partly allowed. The order of the Deputy Registrar superseding the Board of directors dated 16-9-88 is quashed and directed to initiate proceedings for holding fresh election within a month and till then the Committee constituted by the Deputy Registrar shall continue to work. We fail to understand how such a contradictory order could be passed ? When once the Appellate authority came to a conclusion that the order passed by the Deputy registrar was not in accordance with law and illegal it should have, as a necessary consequence, ordered the reinstatement of the Board of Directors as if no order of supersession was passed and if the Appellate Authority was of the view that the matter should be further probed or an enquiry into the allegations against the Sanstha is necessary then it should have passed an order for remanding the case to the Deputy Registrar or the Assistant registrar, whosoever might have been competent to hold the enquiry, to enquire into the matter. But the Joint Registrar has passed a self-contradictory order whereby the order of supersession is quashed, whereas the supersession continues. ( 11 ) IN view of the aforesaid, the order impugned to respect of the continuation of the supersession of the Board of Directors, holding of fresh elections and till then allowing the Ad Hoc Body to continue cannot he held to be legal because the appellate order of quashing the order of supersession has no meaning if the reinstatement is not ordered. ( 12 ) IT has also been pointed out by the petitioners that while ordering the reinstatement, the period of suspension should also have been excluded from the duration of the term of office of the Board of Directors. This has also not been done. But on perusing the impugned order we find that the joint Registrar has taken into consideration the impact of the order of supersession and has held that actually the Board of Directors was not suspended but only an officer was appointed to keep a check on the working of the Directors. Nothing has been brought to our notice to show that the aforesaid finding of the Joint Registrar is contrary to factual position therefore, the prayer of the petitioners for excluding the period of the so-called suspension of the Board of Directors cannot be directed to be excluded from theis term of office. ( 13 ) IN the result, the petition of the petitioners is partly allowed the order of the Appellate Authority directing fresh election and the coatinuance of the Ad Hoc Body after the supersession is quashed being contrary to the settled principles that once an order altering the position of a person is quashed, then such person or Body is relegated to the position which he or it had enjoyed before the passing of such order. As such the joint Registrar committed a manifest error in not ordering the reinstatement of the Board of Directors of the Society while quashing the order of supersession. The petitioner-the Board of Directors- is directed to be reinstated as a result of the quashing of the order of supersession passed by the deputy Registrar. However, this order shall not in any way come in the way of the Authorities if they propose to issue a fresh show cause notice pertaining to the charges against the Board of Directors and holding a fresh enquiry in the matter and passing appropriate orders if they desire to do so. The petition is disposed of as above with no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed. .