JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - The appellate order of the Co-operative Tribunal affirming the decision of the Assistant Registrar dated 10-5-1988 and dismissing the Dispute Case No. 8 of 1986 is being challenged in this writ application. The said order of the Tribunal has been annexed as Annexure-3. 2. A dispute case had been raised challenging the legality of the election held of the Nakhara Seva Samabaya Samiti Limited, a Co-operative Society registered under the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act. Petitioner No. 1 and opposite party No. 4 had filed the dispute in question before the Assistant Registrar and Petitioners 2 to 5 were permitted to intervene and were added as co-Plaintiffs in the dispute. The main grounds on which the dispute case had been filed were that: CD there has been infraction of the proviso to Sub-section (4)(a) of Section 28-A of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act as two month's period had not intervened between the date of publication and date of election; (ii) the voters' list did not include the names of the Petitioners as a result of which they were deprived of their valuable rights of exercising their franchise as well as they were prevented from contesting the election (iii) the carving out of zones and/or constituencies had been arbitrarily made by the executive committee which had no power and such arbitrary carving out vitiates the entire election process. 3. Though the Society was a party to the dispute, but no written statement was filed by the Society. The Election Officer, who was a party, however, has submitted a written statement. Petitioners 1 and 2 deposed before the Assistant Registrar. The learned Assistant Registrar on the materials before him dismissed the dispute case rejecting all the contention raised by the Petitioners before him. Against the order of dismissal passed by the Assistant Registrar, the Petitioners carried an appeal to the Co-operative Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order having rejected the appeal, the Petitioners approached this Court in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The Tribunal has found that the notice that was issued by the Election Officer on 19-9-1986 was published on the notice board of the Society as required u/s 28-A(4)(a) and there has been no infraction of the proviso to Section 28-A(4)(a) as two, month's period intervened between the date of publication and date of election. 4. The Tribunal has found that the notice that was issued by the Election Officer on 19-9-1986 was published on the notice board of the Society as required u/s 28-A(4)(a) and there has been no infraction of the proviso to Section 28-A(4)(a) as two, month's period intervened between the date of publication and date of election. The Tribunal further found that the procedure prescribed under Rule 78 of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Rules had been duly followed and there had been no contravention. On the question whether the executive committee could carve, out constituencies the Tribunal held that there being no bar for the executive committee to take such action and the Petitioners not having objected to the voters' list when it was so published, "here had been no infraction of the law. On these findings, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. 5. Mr. Lenka, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, raises two contentions in assailing the order of the Tribunal: (i) The finding of the Tribunal that there has been no infraction of the proviso to Sub-section (4)(a) of Section 28-A of the Act is contrary to the materials on record and such a finding cannot be sustained; and (ii) The conclusion of the Tribunal with regard to the power of the executive committee regarding carving out of constituency is wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules framed thereunder and such a conclusion cannot be sustained. Mr. Mallick, the learned Counsel appearing for some of the opposite parties, on the other hand, contends that the question whether there was due publication of notice and two month's period intervened between the date of publication and date of holding of election is a pure question of fact. The Tribunal having come to a finding on the basis of materials produced before it and the said finding being a finding on a question of fact cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of the certiorari jurisdiction. Mr. The Tribunal having come to a finding on the basis of materials produced before it and the said finding being a finding on a question of fact cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of the certiorari jurisdiction. Mr. Mallick further urges that no doubt the powers of the executive committee as provided under the Act or under Rule 33 of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Rules do not specifically provide for carving out constituency but such a power could be inferred from Rule 30-A(4)(a) of the Rules since the Secretary of the Society has the duty to prepare a list of members on the ran constituency-wise and no objection having been raised in accordance with Rule 30-A(4)(b) and the list having been finalised under the Rules, no objection can be permitted to be raised at this stage. The rival contentions require a careful examination of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules and the law on the subject. 6. So far as the first contention of Mr. Lenka is concerned, the Tribunal on perusal of the materials produced before it has come to a positive finding that the notice in question was published on the notice-board on 19-9-1986. This finding is obviously a finding on a pure question of fact and if notice was published on 19-9-1986 on the notice-Board, and election was held obviously two months thereafter and therefore, there has been no infraction of the proviso to Section 28-A(4)(a) of the Act. It is now too well settled by a series of authorities of the Supreme Court that a finding of an inferior tribunal on a question of fact cannot be interfered with by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution unless the said finding is held to be perverse or there is no evidence to support the said finding. In other words, what would he corrected is an error of law apparent on the face of the order. In this view of the matter, the finding as to publication of notice on 19-9-1986 being based on evidence adduced before the Tribunal, the said finding cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The first contention of Mr. Lenka is accordingly rejected. 7. So far as the second contention of Mr. Lenka is concerned, we find sufficient force in the same. The first contention of Mr. Lenka is accordingly rejected. 7. So far as the second contention of Mr. Lenka is concerned, we find sufficient force in the same. Admittedly there has been re-carving out of constituencies by the executive committee. The question for consideration is whether the executive committee has jurisdiction to re-carve out the constituencies; as has been done, or not and if so whether the entire election process has been vitiated or not. The answer to this question would depend upon an examination of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. u/s 28 of the Act, the management of a society vests in a committee constituted in accordance with the Rules and Bye-Laws and the committee so constituted shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be conferred or imposed by or under this Act. The powers of the committee of a society have been defined in Rule 33 of the Rules. The power of delimitation or carving out the constituencies is admittedly not there within the said rule and it is further conceded that even the Bye-laws of the Society do not empower the committee to carve out such constituencies. Rule 34 defines the duties of the committee and even from that it cannot be inferred that -the committee could alter the constituencies either by addition to or substraction from a constituency. In this view of the matter, a committee of the society being a creature of the statute and the statute having circumscribed the powers of the said committee and carving out of constituencies not being one included within the power, it must be held that the committee transgressed its power by carving out the constituencies before the election. Mr. In this view of the matter, a committee of the society being a creature of the statute and the statute having circumscribed the powers of the said committee and carving out of constituencies not being one included within the power, it must be held that the committee transgressed its power by carving out the constituencies before the election. Mr. Mallick appearing for the opposite parties concedes to the fact that the committee has not been specifically authorised to carve out constituencies, but contends that under Sub-rule (4)(a) of Rule 30-A, the Secretary of the society having been given the power to prepare constituency-wise lists of members on the roll, with address, who are qualified in accordance with the provisions of the Act, Rules and Bye-laws to participate in the election and publish copies of the list by affixing them to the notice board at the Head Office of the society, it must be construed that the committee had the power of delimiting constituencies or carving out of the constituencies We are unable to read into the provisions of Sub-rule (4)(a) of Rule 30-A, the power of delimitation with the committee of the society and we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the submission of Mr. Mallick on this score. The Tribunal has taken into account the fact that no objection was raised within the stipulated period and thereby the lists prepared in accordance with the carved out constituencies cannot be challenged. But in our considered opinion, the Tribunal committed gross error in coming to the said conclusion. If the Committee had no jurisdiction to delimit the constituencies or carve out the constituencies as held by us, then it goes to the root of the matter and the carving out of the constituencies done by the committee must be held to be wholly without jurisdiction and thereby, the entire election process gets vitiated. Such a power of carving out lies with the general body and reading the entire Act and the Rules, if a committee decides to make delimitation and carve out constituencies then that must be ratified in the annual general meeting as contemplated u/s 29 of the Act. That has also not been done in the present case. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the entire election process has been vitiated and the same is accordingly quashed. 8. That has also not been done in the present case. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the entire election process has been vitiated and the same is accordingly quashed. 8. In the net result, therefore, the order of the Tribunal as well as that of the Assistant Registrar is hereby quashed and the election held of the Nakhara Seva Samabaya Samiti Limited is quashed and the authorities under the Act are directed to take steps for holding fresh election in accordance with law. The writ application is allowed, but there will be no order as to costs. J.M. Mahapatra, J. I agree. Writ application allowed. Final Result : Allowed