ORDER :- The petitioners are promoters of the society formed for the benefit of harijans. They however are not harijans. Clause 6(1) of the Bye-laws of the society provides that the membership is restricted to harijans who are unemployed and capable of doing work and residing within the jurisdiction of the society. To put it differently only harijans who are unemployed and residing within the jurisdiction of the society can aspire to become members of the society. 2. Having come to know that the petitioners are not harijans though they had married harijans, the Registrar of the Industrial Co-operative Societies issued notice to the petitioners calling upon them to show cause as to why they should not be expelled from the membership. Ext. P4 is the reply the petitioners gave to the show-cause notice. The Registrar was not satisfied with the explanation and this resulted in the issuance of Ext. P5 order which is under challenge in this O.P. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the scheme of the Co-operative Societies Act is such that the promoters of a society will automatically become members of the society whether or not they were admitted subsequent to the registration of the society. The question as to whether the petitioners are eligible to become members of the society does not arise, after the formation of the society, and as such the finding in Ext. P5, that they are liable to be expelled from the membership as they are not harijans for whose benefit the society has been formed based on the result of an enquiry after the registration of society, is not sustainable. In any event the direction that they are not entitled to the stipend although admittedly they have successfully completed the training course, is liable to be set aside. On the other hand the learned Government Pleader submits that only those harijans who are living within the jurisdiction of the society and unemployed can become members of the society which indisputably is formed exclusively for the benefit of the said harijans. Petitioners admittedly are not harijans though they have married harijan males and therefore the proceeding initiated by the authority concerned to expel them from the membership is beyond challenge. Similarly, it is further contended, there is little scope to interfere with the decision of the Registrar that the petitioners are not entitled to get the stipend. 4. Petitioners admittedly are not harijans though they have married harijan males and therefore the proceeding initiated by the authority concerned to expel them from the membership is beyond challenge. Similarly, it is further contended, there is little scope to interfere with the decision of the Registrar that the petitioners are not entitled to get the stipend. 4. The point thus arising for consideration is whether the petitioners on account of the fact that they are the promoters of the society and as such members thereof are liable to be expelled from the membership for the reason that they are not harijans. Yet another question we have to tackle is : Are the petitioners, in the circumstances, entitled to the stipend, the authority concerned used to pay to those members of the society who had undergone the training course introduced by District Industrial Centre, Ernakulam. 5. Coming to the first question : We have to keep in view in this connection, some of the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules framed thereunder. An application for registration of a society is made under Section 6 of the Act. If the Registrar, on a perusal of the application, is satisfied that the conditions stipulated in Section 7 of the Act are satisfied, he may register the society and its bye-laws. Persons who are eligible to become members, going by the bye-laws, will thereafter be admitted as members of the society. A person who wants to get himself admitted as a member of the society shall satisfy the requirements prescribed under Section 16. Section 18(1) provides that a society can admit any individual as a nominal or associate member. Sub-section (2) thereof says that such a member shall not be entitled to any share, in any form whatsoever, in the assets or profits of the society or to be elected to the committee of a society. Members of a society other than the nominal or associate members (the rights of these members but for S. 18(2) would have been the same as the other members) cannot exercise the rights of a member unless it be that such members have made such payments to the society in respect of membership or acquired such interest in the society as may be prescribed by the rules or the bye-laws (vide Section 19). It should in this connection be remembered that so far as a promoter member is concerned, his rights are not curtailed as in the case of a nominal/ associate member or a nominated member within the meaning of Section 31. Before a regular committee is formed for the management of the society, the promoters of the society can appoint a committee to conduct the affairs of the society for a period of three months from the date of registration or for such other period as the Registrar may consider necessary. Whatever that be, that committee shall cease to function as soon as a committee has been constituted in accordance with the bye-laws (vide Section 28). These provisions clearly show that after the constitution of the committee in terms of Section 28, the distinction that is maintained till then, between a member who is a promoter of the society and a member admitted after the registration of the society, disappears; that means, a promoter member after the registration of the society will, for all purposes, be treated as a person admitted as a member of the society after the registration. Thereafter there would be only three types of members namely; (1) members within the meaning of Section 16, (2) nominal or associate members as defined under Section 18 and (3) nominated members coming under Section 31. We have to consider the scope of sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 16 empowering the authority to remove a person from membership alongside. Sub-rule (3) provides that where a person already admitted to membership is seen to have been ineligible for membership at the time he was so admitted as a member or if he subsequently becomes ineligible for membership, the Committee of the Society may remove the person from membership after giving him an opportunity for making his representation if any, and the person concerned shall thereupon cease to be a member of the society. If the committee is not prepared to initiate proceedings within the meaning of sub-rule (3) the Registrar has got the power under sub-rule (4) either of his own motion or on a representation made to him by any member of the society or by the financing bank, by an order in writing declare that he has ceased to be a member of the society from the date of his order. Before such an order is passed the Registrar is bound to give such person an opportunity to state his objection if any to the proposed action and if the person wishes to be heard, he shall be given an opportunity to be heard before passing an order as aforesaid. Even at the risk of repetition I shall observe that these provisions do not draw any distinction between a promoter member and a member admitted to the society after the registration. These provisions treat all the members except those falling under Section 18 and Section 31 alike. The promoter member therefore cannot be placed on a high pedestal. He will also be treated as a person admitted as a member of a society after the registration. If such a view is not taken there will be two classes of memberships in that category which going by the scheme of the Act, the legislature never intended to have. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners nonetheless contended that the Registrar who has ordered registration of the society and who had occasion to verify these matters before he ordered registration must be held to have been satisfied that the petitioners are eligible to become members. The Registrar shall not thereafter turn round and say that the petitioner, as they are not harijans, are liable to be removed from the membership. This is a case where the doctrine of promissory estoppel squarely applies and therefore the order directing removal of the petitioners from the membership is liable to be quashed. In support of this argument he relied on a Division Bench ruling of the Allahabad High Court in A. N. Saxena v. D.R.C.S. U.P., (1969 ALJ 652). He made particular reference to the following observation of the Division Bench : "At any rate, no dispute about the membership of person joining the application for registration of the Society can be raised after the registration of the Society". This observation, the Division Bench per force has to make because the Rules that came up for interpretation do contain provisions empowering the authority concerned to conduct an enquiry and take a decision pertaining to the eligibility of a promoter of a society even before the registration is granted. A reference in this connection to Rule 5 of the Rules construed by the Division Bench is profitable. It reads :- "5. A reference in this connection to Rule 5 of the Rules construed by the Division Bench is profitable. It reads :- "5. The membership of the society shall consist of- (a) those who join the application for registration, and (b) those who are subsequently elected as members according to those bye-laws". Here the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder are different from the provisions contained in the Rules which the learned Judges of the Allahabad High Court construed. It is relevant in this context to note that as per the provisions of our Act and Rules the question as to whether the applicant for registration of the society is eligible to become a member of the society is irrelevant to be considered by the Registrar while ordering registration of the society. He has to consider and dispose of the application for registration in the light of, the provisions contained in Section 7 of the Act. Those matters that the Registrar is bound to consider at that stage do not take in the question aforesaid. If that be the position the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when once it is concerned that he is a promoter member the question as to whether he is eligible to become a member does not arise at a later stage must be held to be without substance. The above ruling of the Allahabad High Court therefore has no application to the facts of the case. To put it pithily the Registrar, to my mind, has ample power to consider the question whether a promoter member is eligible to continue as a member even after the registration of the society. It therefore follows that the proceeding, Ext. P5, initiated by the Registrar, on the basis of the declaration that the petitioners are liable to be expelled from the membership, to supersede the committee under Section 32 is beyond challenge. 7. As regards the second point : That the petitioners have undergone the training (the period of training is from 1-6-1988 to 30-11-1988) mentioned supra is beyond challenge. They completed the course at a time when no authority had disputed their right to join the course. 7. As regards the second point : That the petitioners have undergone the training (the period of training is from 1-6-1988 to 30-11-1988) mentioned supra is beyond challenge. They completed the course at a time when no authority had disputed their right to join the course. In this context it is relevant to refer to the following excerpt from the counter affidavit : "The Registrar of Industries Co-operative Societies and the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Ernakulam who issued the registration certificate was also quite unaware of the community of the petitioners. To the best of the knowledge of the 1st respondent there are no definite rules regarding admission of non-harijans married to harijan members in a harijan society." Failure on the part of the authority concerned to enquire into this aspect at the relevant time has resulted in miscarriage of justice. The petitioners who have already completed the course with the permission of the authority concerned, in my view, shall not be denied the stipend. Until the petitioners are removed from the membership of the society, and particularly for the reason that they have been recognised as members of the society by the authorities concerned till they were removed from service, they for all practical purposes must be deemed to be members of the society and therefore their eligibility for the stipend cannot be doubted. If that be so it is necessary to issue the direction namely that the 2nd respondent shall pay the petitioners stipend at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The O.P. is disposed of as above. No costs. Order accordingly.