JUDGMENT - CHAPALGAONKAR N.P., J.:---Of these writ petitions, which have been placed before the Single Judge, Writ Petition No. 372 of 1990 and Writ Petition No. 2400 of 1990 are on the final hearing board and rest of the petitions are for admission and orders. An objection has been raised about the jurisdiction of the Single Judge of this Court to hear these petitions and on this point, I have heard all the learned Counsel appearing for the parties in these petitions. 2. Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 speaks about the procedure in respect of the petitions under Articles 226 and 227 and applications under Article 228 of the Constitution and Rules for issue of writs and orders under the said Articles. Rule 18 of this Chapter is an exception to the general provision contained in Rule 3 of this Chapter. Rule 3 of this Chapter provides that the applications for issue of direction, order or writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall be heard by the Division Bench of this Court. Rule 4 of the said Rules authorises a Single Judge to grant Rule nisi provided that he shall not pass any final order on that application. This enables Single Judge of this Court to grant interim reliefs and pass orders admitting matters though the matter would lie to the Division Bench in the normal course. Rule 18 authorises the Single Judge to hear and dispose of certain kinds of petition and applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Entry No. 12 of the said Rule is to the following effect- (12) the decision given in the proceedings in respect of the disputes under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The question for the consideration is whether the writ petitions before this Court today are covered by the ambit of Entry No. 12 of Rule 18 of the High Court Appellate Side Rules. 3. Writ Petition No. 1096 of 1990 prays for an order quashing direction by District Dairy Department Officer, Osmanabad directing Bhoom Taluka Dudh Utpadak Sangh Maryadit, Bhoom not to collect the milk supplied by three Primary Co-operative Societies. 3. Writ Petition No. 1096 of 1990 prays for an order quashing direction by District Dairy Department Officer, Osmanabad directing Bhoom Taluka Dudh Utpadak Sangh Maryadit, Bhoom not to collect the milk supplied by three Primary Co-operative Societies. Writ Petition No. 2370/1990 prays for quashing of the order passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Newasa constituting a Committee for administration of Co-operative Society and also for prohibiting the implementation of a Resolution of the Administrative Committee to appoint a delegate to vote at the election of Ahmednagar District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Ahmednagar. Writ Petition No. 2388 of 1990 prays for setting aside an order passed by District Dairy Development Officer, Osmanabad permitting the collection of milk from a primary milk Co-operative Society. Writ Petition No. 2591 of 1990 challenges erratum issued by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Raver in respect of the sanction of the amendment to the bye-laws. Writ Petition No. 3122 of 1990 challenges order of the State Government passed on same day in the month of July, 1990 permitting the opening of the account and registration of the two Ginning and Pressing Co-operative Societies. Writ Petition No. 3127 of 1990 challenges the order dated 4-10-1990 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Dairy), Osmanabad granting registration to a milk society. Writ Petition No. 3132 of 1990 challenges a notice dated 17-9-1990 requiring respondent No. 2 Society to put their say in respect of the allegations that certain members were illegally enrolled as members of the said society. Writ Petition No. 3126 of 1990 challenges order of the Divisional Joint Registrar refusing the prayer for the stay in revision which was filed before the Divisional Joint Registrar challenging an order of the Assistant Registrar passed under section 73-FF against one of the Directions of Ginning and Pressing Co-operative Society. Writ Petition No. 3001/1990 challenges a Resolution of the Co-operative Society not to give loan to the petitioners for reason stated in the Resolution. 4. Writ Petition No. 2400 of 1990 challenges the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister for State for Co-operation and order of the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad and seeks the confirmation of the order by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Kandhar appointing an Administrator for the Society under section 77-A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. 4. Writ Petition No. 2400 of 1990 challenges the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister for State for Co-operation and order of the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad and seeks the confirmation of the order by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Kandhar appointing an Administrator for the Society under section 77-A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Writ Petition No. 372 of 1990 seeks a direction to the society to disburse the loan amount to the petitioner. In both these writ petitions, the rule was issued by the Division Bench of this Court and later on these are placed before the Single Judge for final disposal by the office, interpreting the amendment of the Rule 18 which has come into force from 24th September, 1990. 5. The term 'dispute' has not been defined by the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Chapter IX of this Act (hereinafter called as 'the Act of 1960' for the purpose of brevity), provides for the settlement of disputes. Section 91 carves out jurisdiction to decide certain kinds of disputes and entrusts it to the Co-operative Courts. Section 91-A provides for the establishment of the Co-operative Courts. Section 92 lays down rules regarding limitation for such disputes. Section 93 enables transfer of a dispute from one Co-operative Court to another Co-operative Court. Section 94 provides for an appeal against decision of the Co-operative Court. Sections 98 to 101 related to the execution of the awards passed in dispute. We also find a mention of disputes in section 105 of the Act of 1960 where the liquidator is authorised to refer or get referred any dispute to the Co-operative Court for decision. But again such a dispute will have to be of the kind listed in section 91 to have the Co-operative Court the jurisdiction to try the case. The only other kind of dispute other than those referred in section 91, which is triable by machinery created under the Act of 1960 finds place in section 144-T. This section authorises the Commissioner of the Division or an officer not below the rank of Additional Commissioner of the Division authorised by the State Government in this behalf to decide the disputes relating to the elections of specified Co-operative Societies. Section 163 creates a bar to the jurisdiction of Civil or Revenue Court in respect of three classes of matters. Section 163 creates a bar to the jurisdiction of Civil or Revenue Court in respect of three classes of matters. Firstly, matters in respect of registration of society or its bye-laws or amendment thereof or dissolution of a committee of Society or management of the Society on dissolution thereof. Secondly, any dispute required to be referred to the Co-operative Court for decision and thirdly, in respect of matters concerning the winding up and dissolution of the society. 6. Section 91, in a way, is an exception to section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure which gives jurisdiction to all Civil Courts to try all suits of civil nature. The cognizance of certain matters, which otherwise would have been subject-matter of the civil suit, can be barred by special enactment and section 163 of the said Act of 1960 is one of such instances. 7. Relevant part of section 163 is quoted below- 163. (1) Save as expressly provided in this Act, no Civil or Revenue Court shall have any jurisdiction in respect of- (a) The registration of a society or its bye-laws, or the amendments of its bye-laws, or the dissolution of the Committee of a society, or the management of the society in dissolution thereof; or (b) any dispute required to be referred to (the Co-operative Court) for decision; (c) any matter concerned with the winding up and dissolution of a society. It can well be noted that section 163 used term 'dispute' only in sub-section (1)(b) and when it was referring to the matters arising out of the registration or society or its bye-laws or dissolution of committee or the management of society, legislature has not used the term 'dispute'. These were also matters in which positions opposing each other might be taken by parties. Nonetheless, the word 'dispute' was not used by the legislature in sub-section (1)(a) or 1(c). Therefore, it can be gathered that the word 'dispute' is used in the Act of 1960 in a definite and limited sense. 8. The Oxford English Dictionary (1969) defines 'dispute' to be "an argumentative contention or debate; a controversy; a difference of opinion, a heated contention, a quarrel, an oral or written discussion of a subject in which arguments for and against are set forth and examined and also as strife, contest, a fight or struggle." 9. 8. The Oxford English Dictionary (1969) defines 'dispute' to be "an argumentative contention or debate; a controversy; a difference of opinion, a heated contention, a quarrel, an oral or written discussion of a subject in which arguments for and against are set forth and examined and also as strife, contest, a fight or struggle." 9. In the widest sense of the term, the term 'dispute' means and includes any controversy between the two individuals or two institutions and in given circumstances, one of such party may also be the State. But in this larger context, the term dispute has not been used by the Act of 1960. The legislature appears to have restricted the meaning of the dispute so far this Act is concerned disputes of civil nature, which would have otherwise been triable by an Civil Court under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but for the bar created in section 163(1)(b) of the Act of 1960 are only to be considered as disputes under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. 10. The dispute under the Co-operative Societies Act refers to the controversy normally in which individual or society may be the parties and if they would be triable by the machinery created under Act. The Co-operative Court exercising jurisdiction under section 91 or Commissioner of the Division or an Additional Commissioner exercising jurisdiction under section 144-T would be deciding the cases more or less taking the position of third party arbitrator and these decisions, which would be discharge of a judicial function, are the decisions in dispute. Therefore, they are distinct from the orders arising out of the exercise of the administrative functions of the Registrar, the State Government or other authorities subordinate to them. This exercise of the administrative power can also be challenged before the proper forum but that would be the judicial review of administrative action and not challenge to a decision given in the dispute in exercise of the judicial function. This exercise of the administrative power can also be challenged before the proper forum but that would be the judicial review of administrative action and not challenge to a decision given in the dispute in exercise of the judicial function. But when parties seek for direction which is in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ that the society should be directed to disburse loan; State Government should be directed to register a particular society, the direction of Hon'ble Minister to register a particular society or any other order of the Registrar in his administrative function be stayed, then such prayers will be outside the scope of the term 'dispute' under the Act of 1960. 11. Shri N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, appearing on behalf of one of the petitioners, invited my attention to the difference in language of the Entry No. 12 in the amended Rule and relevant any in the rule which stood before the amendment. Entry No. 11 in the Rule 18 before the amendment was reading thus- "Decisions given in proceedings in respect of disputes under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act." The only difference between Entry No. 11 in the previous rule and Entry No. 12 in the amended rule is the omission of reference to section 91. Harping on this difference. Mr. Patil submitted that it appears that now in exercise of the rule making power, this High Court has widened the scope of the jurisdiction of the Single Judge in respect of the matters arising out of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. It is his submission that since there is no mention of section 91, all matters arising out of the Co-operative Societies Act can be heard by the Single Judge of this Court. I am afraid that this interpretation put by him to Entry No. 12 in Rule 18 cannot be accepted. 12. It was further submitted on behalf of one of the petitioners that in respect of any matter if a revision has been filed under section 154 before the Divisional Joint Registrar or State Government, any decision given by these authorities exercising revisional jurisdiction or appellate jurisdiction provides by the Act in respect of the orders under provisions other than section 91 or 144-T, can also be termed to be a dispute. I am afraid that such a proposition cannot be accepted for the reason that orders passed in exercise of administrative powers also are revisable under section 154 and revisional jurisdiction under the Act of 1960 is not available in decisions arising out of disputes. 13. Chapter XI-A dealing with the elections of the Committee and Officers of certain specified societies was inserted by Act No. XXVII of 1969, and section 144-T created a special machinery for deciding the election disputes arising out of the elections of these specified Co-operative Societies. In section 144-T also, the term dispute has been used in reference to controversies arising out of these elections and consequently, section 91 came to be amended and the disputes regarding the elections of the Committees of the specified societies including its officers were taken out from the jurisdiction conferred under section 91 to the Co-operative Courts. Therefore, the position as it stands after the insertion of Chapter XI-A in the Act of 1960 is that there are two kinds of disputes under the Co-operative Societies Act which are to be tried by special machinaries created under the said Act. This necessitated an amendment of the entry in Rule 18. Otherwise, it would not have covered the disputes under Chapter XI-A of the Act of 1960. This appears to be the only reason as to why reference to section 91 was omitted from the relevant entry in respect of the matters arising out of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. 14. While considering as to when a controversy between the workman and the employer can become industrial dispute, Chagla, C.J., speaking for Division Bench of this Court in the case of (Narender Kumar Sen and others v. All India Industrial Disputes (Labour Appellate) Tribunal and others)1, A.I.R. 1953 Bom. 325, has observed thus- "But it is not enough that it should be an industrial controversy; it must be a dispute, and in my opinion it is not every controversy or every difference of opinion between workmen and employers which is constituted a dispute or difference within the meaning of section 2(k). 325, has observed thus- "But it is not enough that it should be an industrial controversy; it must be a dispute, and in my opinion it is not every controversy or every difference of opinion between workmen and employers which is constituted a dispute or difference within the meaning of section 2(k). A workman may have ideological difference with his employer; a workman may feel sympathetic consideration for an employee in his own industry or in other industry; a workman may feel seriously agitated about the conditions of labour outside our own country; but it is absurd to suggest that any of these factors would entitle a workman to raise an industrial dispute within the meaning of section 2(k). The dispute contemplated by section 2(k) is a controversy in which the workman is directly and substantially interested. It must also be a grievance felt by the workman which the employer is in a position to remedy. Both the conditions must be present; it must be a grievance of the workman himself; it must be a grievance which the employer as an employer is in a position to remedy or set right." 15. Therefore, when the Legislature uses the word 'dispute', it gets a restricted meaning and is to be understood in the context in which the term is used. The word 'dispute; has been used by a Full Bench of this Court in case of (Rambhau Jairam Dhamange v. The President, Vinkar Co-operative Society Ltd.)2, 1966 Mh.L.J. 1. Considering the scope of the term dispute triable under section 91 and considering different cases interpreting provisions of section 91 and also of section 54 of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 which held the field before the enactment of Act of 1960 the Full Bench observed as follows: "The position, therefore, is that the dispute referred to the Registrar under sub-section (1) of section 91 must be such as a Civil Court can take cognizance of and try. Like a Civil Court, the Registrar cannot grant any relief outside the contract of employment. He cannot, therefore, try any matter in which a demand is made for a change in the conditions of service or for reinstatement of an employee whose services had been terminated. By and large, the Co-operative Societies Act and the Industrial Disputes Act provide for the settlement of different classes of disputes. He cannot, therefore, try any matter in which a demand is made for a change in the conditions of service or for reinstatement of an employee whose services had been terminated. By and large, the Co-operative Societies Act and the Industrial Disputes Act provide for the settlement of different classes of disputes. Even though, therefore, the words "any dispute" in sub-section (1) of section 91 are very wide, they will have to be given a limited meaning, for the reasons which I have given above. These words mean any dispute which the Registrar is competent to try and decide." 16. Once we hold that the word 'dispute' as used in the Act of 1960 has a limited meaning referring only to the disputes which are triable by the machinaries created under the Act of 1960, then it follows that in the same sense word 'dispute' has been used in Entry No. 12 in Rule 18 of the Bombay High Court, Appellate Side Rules. 17. The Division Bench of this Court consisting of Kotwal, C.J. and Bal, J., in the case of (Jagjivan Kanji Bhojani and another v. Mangal Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.)3, A.I.R. 1967 Bom. 421, considered the question whether a matter can be taken to be a dispute for passing interlocutory orders before Registrar determining it to be a dispute. Sub-section (2) of section 91 had provided that- "When any question arises whether for the purpose of foregoing sub-section, a matter referred to for decision is a dispute or not, the question shall be considered by the Registrar, whose decisions shall be final." (This sub-section came to be deleted by the Maharashtra Act No. XXVII of 1969). The Division Bench answered in the affirmative and held that- "The word 'dispute' has been used in the Act in two senses. In one sense, it covers a dispute which the Registrar has determined as a dispute. In another sense, it is a dispute which is in the initial stage of being referred to the Registrar." Because of the deletion of sub-section (2) of section 91 by the Act of 1969, now this stage of consideration of matters before the determination whether it is a dispute or not, has been abolished. In another sense, it is a dispute which is in the initial stage of being referred to the Registrar." Because of the deletion of sub-section (2) of section 91 by the Act of 1969, now this stage of consideration of matters before the determination whether it is a dispute or not, has been abolished. Therefore, it would now refer only to the disputes which have been initiated in the Co-operative Court or to the Additional Commissioner arising out of section 91 or section 144-T of the Act of 1960 respectively. The Division Bench in the case of Jagjivan Kanji Bhojani has pointed out in paragraph 17 of its judgment that- "A reference before the Registrar cannot arise by any order of the Registrar suo motu. It is only the parties to refer a dispute between them to the Registrar." Thus, it can be gathered that a matter which is initiated by parties before the Co-operative Court or the Additional Commissioner, as the case may be, and is within the ambit of the jurisdiction vested in these special authorities under section 91 or section 144-T would only be covered by the term 'dispute' and the writ petitions challenging the decisions in such disputes can only be heard by Single Judge of this Court. 18. In the case of (Dinkar Wasudeo Joshi v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bombay and Pune)4, reported in 1946(48) Bom.L.R. 104. The Division Bench of this Court negatived the contention put forth before it that a dispute would arise immediately when the cause of action has arisen. It ruled that- "The word 'dispute' in section 54 of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 implies some kind of disagreement between parties concerned, some reference to legal claim or liability. Every kind of dispute is not intended to be referred to for decision by Registrar or by his nominee or arbitration otherwise. The word 'dispute' cannot be said to be same thing as a cause of action or the mere incurring of a liability." 19. Every kind of dispute is not intended to be referred to for decision by Registrar or by his nominee or arbitration otherwise. The word 'dispute' cannot be said to be same thing as a cause of action or the mere incurring of a liability." 19. For the purpose of interpretation of Rule 18(12), it is suffice to hold that only decisions arising out of disputes filed before the Co-operative Court or the Additional Commissioner as the case may be, can be said to be decisions in the proceedings in respect of disputes under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and the petitions containing such challenges can only be tried by the Single Judge of this Court. 20. The challenge in none of the above writ petitions before this Court can be said to be disputes within the meaning of section 91 or section 144-T and they do not arise out of any decision in the proceedings in respect of dispute under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and, therefore, the Single Judge is not competent to hear and decide these petitions. 21. I, therefore, direct that petitions be placed before the Division Bench of this Court for further orders. Order accordingly. -----