JUDGMENT S.C. Verma, J. - By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. the petitioner has challenged the order dated 11-8-1989 passed by the Cooperative Tribunal, U.P., Lucknow against the order of the Registrar dated 20-8-1988 disposing of the preliminary objection to the maintainability of the dispute relating to the constitution, Management or the business of the Cooperative Society, raised by the petitioners. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner is a registered Housing Society and a contract was entered in the years 1974. 1976 and 1980 for the development of the colony of the Society with respondent no. 1 who being a Member of the Society was also a contractor. The respondent no. 1, Proprietor of Deopal & Company was given contract for development of the Colony for members of the Lawyers Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Agra. A dispute arose on account of withholding of the bills under the contract and by not taking any decision by the Society for the payment of the bills. The respondent no. 1 initiated proceedings under sections 70 and 71 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act. It was prayed that the dispute relating to the non-payment of bills be referred for arbitration. 3. The petitioners filed a written statement and ran ed the preliminary objection that the dispute, if any, with regard to the contract is not a dispute between the members of the Society or in between the Society and its members but is purely a Civil dispute for realisation of payment due under the contract. It was further alleged that the respondent no. 1 was not a member of the Society at the time when the contracts were entered between the Society and respondent no. 1. 4. The Assistant Housing Commissioner by order dated 28-1-1988 held that the respondent no. 1 was a member of the Society at the relevant time and he was allotted development work of the Society since 1980-81. The respondent no. 1 was enrolled as member and a receipt through which the membership was paid, was on the record. The preliminary objection was disposed of and the case itself was directed to be taken up for adjudication on the next date. The petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid order which has also been dismissed by the Cooperative Tribunal, U.P., Lucknow. 1 was enrolled as member and a receipt through which the membership was paid, was on the record. The preliminary objection was disposed of and the case itself was directed to be taken up for adjudication on the next date. The petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid order which has also been dismissed by the Cooperative Tribunal, U.P., Lucknow. The Tribunal, while considering the provisions of Sub-Section (3) of Section 70 of the Act held that a decision of the Registrar in a dispute referred relating to the constitution, management or business of the Cooperative Society shall be final and shall not be questioned in any court. The Tribunal, on the basis of the aforesaid provision, further held that no appeal under Section 97 or 98 was maintainable. The appeal was thus rejected as not maintainable as also on the ground of limitation. 5. In my opinion, the Tribunal has correctly not considered the merits of the case and has treated the appeal as not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 70(3) of the Act. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner with regard to the maintainability of the proceedings under Section 70 was disposed of by the Assistant Registrar by order dated 20-8-1988 and the decision thereof is final and is not liable to be questioned in any Court. The provision for appeal under Sections 97 & 98 of the act is against the award or against the orders as enumerated under the provision of Section 98 of the Act. The Provisions of sub clause (k) of section 98(2) of the Act do not contemplate an order passed with regard to the maintainability of the proceedings itself. The present order of the Assistant Registrar disposing of the preliminary objection is squarely covered under the provisions of Section 70(3) of the Act as no award has been given and no appeal would lie against the aforesaid order. The challenge to the order of the Tribunal dated 11-8-1989 thus fails. 6. As regards the order dated 29-8-1988, the respondent no. 1 was no doubt a member of the Society and had also entered into a contract with the Society for development work to be done for the Society. The action of the Society refusing to take any decision and withholding the bills of respondent no. 6. As regards the order dated 29-8-1988, the respondent no. 1 was no doubt a member of the Society and had also entered into a contract with the Society for development work to be done for the Society. The action of the Society refusing to take any decision and withholding the bills of respondent no. 1 has been rightly treated to be matter which touches the business of the Society between a member and the Society. 7. In my opinion, the Assistant Housing Commissioner has not committed any error of law or jurisdiction in coming to the conclusion that the proceeding against the respondent no. 1 under See. 70 of the Act is a dispute relating to the business of the Society under which the Society has refused to proceed with the development work through the respondent no. 1 and has withheld the payment of development work done by the respondent no. 1. Moreover, the dispute is yet to be adjudicated on the basis of material on record by the respondent no. 5. 8. The petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order dated 20-11-1989 is discharged. The respondent no. 5 is directed to decide case no. 45-W/88 Deopal Singh Sirohi v. Dwarka Prasad Sharma expeditiously, if possible within 6 months.