U. L. Bhat, C. J.— The President of the Ad-hoc Committee reconstituted for managing the affairs of the Sontoli Gaon Panchayat Samabai Samiti Ltd. is the petitioner. A copy of the petition has been served on the learned Govt. Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2. The third respondent appears before us through counsel. We have heard learned counsel appearing for all the parties. 2. By Annexure 2, letter dated 29.7.91, the Under Secretary to the State Government required the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to reconstitute the Ad-hoc Committee of the Society to manage the affairs of the Society with the members indicated in the letter. This direction was implemented by the Registrar by issuing Annexure 1, order constituting the Ad-hoc Committee on 31.7.91. On the 16th day therefrom, namely, on 16.8.91, the same Registrar superseded the Annexure 1 order "in the larger interest of co-operative movement in general and interest of members of Sontoli Gaon Panchayat level Samabay Samity Ltd. in particular" and reconstituted the Managing Committee with a different set of office-bearers. The third respondent represents this reconstituted body. The petitioner challenges the Annexure 4, order superseding the Annexure 1, order reconstituting the Managing Committee. The main allegation of the petitioner is that the Annexure 4,order has been inspired by the Minister of State, Forest and Fisheries in the Govt. of Assam. That this allegation is true can be seen from the note made in Annexure 4 indicating that a copy was forwarded to the P. S. to the Minister of State, Forest and Fisheries etc. "for information of Minister with reference to his letter No. RSF. 13/91/5 dated 30.7.91." 3. We directed the learned Govt. Advocate to place the file as well as the letter before us. What has been placed before us is only the file containing the official orders and the letter of the Under Secretary to the Government. The letter dated 30.7.91 referred to in Annexure 4 is not placed before us. In the circumstances, necessarily, we draw the inference that the reconstitution has been effected at the instance of Hon'ble Minister of State, Forest and Fisheries. 4. The letter dated 30.7.91 referred to in Annexure 4 is not placed before us. In the circumstances, necessarily, we draw the inference that the reconstitution has been effected at the instance of Hon'ble Minister of State, Forest and Fisheries. 4. The provisions of the Assam Co-operative Societies Act, 1949 (Act I of 1950), (in short, the Act) do not confer any jurisdiction on any Minister, in particular a Minister who is not in charge of the Co-operation Department, to issue any such direction to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in the matter of constitution or reconstitution of Managing Committee or Ad-hoc Committee of a co-operative society. The impugned order has been issued j under section 31 (3) of the Act which confers upon the Government and Registrar concurrent powers to appoint officers to hold any of the offices of the society or any persons to be ex-officio members of the Committee of the society even if not members of the society. 5. Even assuming that the Minister's letter could be a valid substitute for a Government order, we do not think the order of the Registrar could be regarded as valid. The order purports to be under section 31 (3) of the Act. Section 31(3) confers concurrent powers on the Government and the Registrar. The Registrars a statutory authority has to exercise his judgment after taking into consideration the factors referred to in the provision. It is true that the Government has similar powers as contemplated under section 31 (3). The Government as statutory authority could exercise the power. But one statutory authority, though superior in nature, cannot issue any direction to another statutory authority in regard to matters on which the statutory authority has to exercise its own judgment and discretion. The Registrar purporting to exercise his statutory power cannot exercise it as per direction of Minister or Government and if he does so, his action is invalid. Hence Annexure 4 order is bad in law. 6. We are fortified in this view by a long line of decisions. Dealing with a case where an officer and the Government are concurrent authorities, the Supreme Court in Purtebpur Company Ltd. vs. Cane Commissioner of Bihar, AIR 1970 SC 1896 , observed : "In the matter of exercise of the power under Rule 6 (1), the State Government and the Cane Commissioner are concurrent authorities. Dealing with a case where an officer and the Government are concurrent authorities, the Supreme Court in Purtebpur Company Ltd. vs. Cane Commissioner of Bihar, AIR 1970 SC 1896 , observed : "In the matter of exercise of the power under Rule 6 (1), the State Government and the Cane Commissioner are concurrent authorities. Their jurisdiction is co-ordinate., we are of the opinion that the impugned orders though purported to have been made by the Cane Commissioner, were, in fact, made by the Chief Minister and hence they are invalid.... It is true that the impugned orders were issued in the name of the Cane Commissioner. Fie merely obeyed the directions issued to him by the Chief Minister. The power exercisable by the Cane Commissioner under Rule 6 (1) is a statutory power. He alone could have exercised that power. While exercising that power he cannot abdicate his responsibility in favour of anyone not even in favour of the State Government or the Chief Minister." This decision is seen followed by the High Court of Kerala in V.P. Mohammad Kutty vs. Thottoli Kunbikoya Haji & others, AIR 1985 Kerala 33, decided by one of us. 7. From the statements made at the Bar we understand that about a year prior to Annexure 1, order, the Managing Committee of the Society was superseded and an Officer of the Department was put in charge of the Society. and that Officer was subsequently replaced by an Ad-hoc Committee under Annexure 1 order. We find that Annexure 1 order was not passed by the Registrar in exercise of his own judgment and discretion, but in response to a direction issued by the Under Secretary to the Govt. under Annexure 2 order. We fail to understand what authority an Under Secretary of the Government had to issue such directions to the Registrar. If the Government have power to pass an order under section 31 (3), the Government could very well have passed such an order, as contemplated under law. The Government, by way of a letter, cannot certainly issue a direction to the Registrar in regard to a matter falling within the statutory jurisdiction of the latter. 8. Hence, we find the order appointing the Ad-hoc Committee under Annexure 1, the petitioner's Committee, cannot also pass the test of law. The Government, by way of a letter, cannot certainly issue a direction to the Registrar in regard to a matter falling within the statutory jurisdiction of the latter. 8. Hence, we find the order appointing the Ad-hoc Committee under Annexure 1, the petitioner's Committee, cannot also pass the test of law. In this view, while quashing the Annexure 4 order, it will not be proper to allow the petitioner's Committee to be in charge of the affairs of the Society. The relief to be granted has to be modulated in an appropriate manner. 9. We allow the writ petition in the following terms : (1) The Annexure 4 order is quashed, (2) The Registrar of Co-operative Societies shall forthwith put the affairs of the Co-operative Society in the hands of an Officer of the Department as contemplated under section 32 (5) of the Act. (3) The Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the person to be so appointed by him, shall forthwith take all necessary steps to hold the Annual General Meeting of the Society for election of a new Managing Committee and ensure that such a Managing Committee is elected and it takes over charge of the Society within three months from today. Under no circumstances shall the State of Assam or the Registrar of Co­operative Societies, Assam postpone the holding of Annual General Meeting of the Co-operative Society.