A. KABIR, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the parties at length. Since the writ application concern, only points of law, no affidavit need be filed in the matter and the matter may be disposed of on the basis of the arguments advanced by the parties. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner Society, a direction was given by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Uttar and Dakshin Dinajpur on 5th June, 1992, directing the Society to amend by-law No. 5 in view of the fact that West Dinajpur District had been bifurcated into Uttar Dinajpur and Dakshin Dinajpur. Such direction was given in terms of sub-section (1) of section 18 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, and the Chairman of the Society was authorised to call a Special General Meeting of the Society within two months with the agenda for considering the proposed amendment of the by-law, as indicated in the order itself. It appears that the petitioner Society called such Special General Meeting, but instead of amending the by-law, as proposed, suggested amendment of certain other by-laws and forwarded the same to the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies for approval. ( 3 ) THEREAFTER, by an order dated 7th September, 1992, the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Uttar and Dakshin Dinajpur, in purported exercise of the powers conferred on him under sub-section (2) of section 18 of the aforesaid Act, directed registration of the amendment of clause No. 5 of the existing by-laws in the manner indicated in the order itself. ( 4 ) APPEARING in support of the writ petition, Mr. Anupam Chatterjee, learned Advocate, submitted that upon the failure of the Society to amend the by-laws, in accordance with the directions given under subsection (1) of section 18 of the aforesaid Act, there were provisions for the Registrar to call such meeting for consideration of the proposal for amendment of bylaws. According to Mr. Chatterjee, without convening such Special General Meeting, the Registrar was not empowered to direct the proposed amendment to be registered and give effect to the same by virtue of an order passed under sub-section (2) of section 18 of the aforesaid Act. ( 5 ) MR. According to Mr. Chatterjee, without convening such Special General Meeting, the Registrar was not empowered to direct the proposed amendment to be registered and give effect to the same by virtue of an order passed under sub-section (2) of section 18 of the aforesaid Act. ( 5 ) MR. Milan Bhattacharya, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State and the State respondents, submitted that the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society, Uttar and Dakshin Dinajpur, had acted within the power conferred on him by the provisions of section 18 of the aforesaid Act. ( 6 ) MR. Bhattacharya submitted that the latter part of sub-section (1) instead, one of the two modes prescribed in the Act for effecting amendment which, according m the Registrar, was necessary or desirable in the interest of the Co-operative Society. According to Mr. Bhattacharya,, the second mode for effecting such amendment is contained in subsection (2) of section 18 and it was upto the Registrar to decide which of the two modes he would follow in effecting such amendment. Mr. Bhattacharya further submitted that since the order had been passed on 7th September, 1992, the delay has proved fatal as far as the writ petitioner is concerned and no relief could be granted to the petitioner Society in view of such unexplained delay. ( 7 ) HAVING regard to the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and on a plain reading of the provisions of section 18 of the aforesaid Act, it appears to me that certain stages have been provided as to how and in what manner the amendment proposed by the Registrar has to be effected by the Society. The first stage is for the Registrar, either on his own motion or on the application of the financing Bank concerned, to direct the Co-operative Society to call a Special General Meeting to effect the amendment which was considered necessary or desirable in the interest of the Society, within the time specified in the order. In default, a mandatory obligation has been cast on the Registrar to call for a Special General Meeting for consideration of his proposal for amendment of the by-laws. In default, a mandatory obligation has been cast on the Registrar to call for a Special General Meeting for consideration of his proposal for amendment of the by-laws. It is clear from the language of the second part of sub-section, (1) of section 18, that the Registrar would call such Special General Meeting in the event the Co-operative Society failed to make the amendment and apply for registration. If, however, the Society failed to make the amendment even after the meeting was called by the Registrar, and failed to apply for registration of such amendment, firm the Registrar, after consulting the financing Bank, would be entitled to make and register the amendment and forward a copy thereof to the Co-operative Society. Subsection (2), in my view, does not relieve the Registrar of his obligation to call a Special General Meeting for the purpose of considerating the proposal for amendment. That, in my view, is a condition precedent before any amendment is effected. ( 8 ) IN my view, the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 18 of the aforesaid Act must follow the provisions of subsection (1) and cannot replace the provisions of sub-section (1), as has been sought to be contended by Mr. Bhattacharya. It is not as if two different modes have been prescribed for effecting the amendment, but only different stages have been prescribed therefore. ( 9 ) AS far as the question relating to delay is concerned, I am afraid that an action of the concerned respondent authorities which is without jurisdiction cannot be rendered valid, even if there has been delay in challenging such action. Such action, if it is contrary to the provisions of the statute, will always be void. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY, in my view, this application must succeed and is allowed. The order impugned in the writ petition dated 7th September, 1992, purported to have been passed under sub-section (2) of section 18 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, is hereby quashed. This will not, however, prevent the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative, Societies to comply with the procedure as laid down in the latter part of sub-section (1) of section -18 of the aforesaid Act and, thereafter, to pass necessary orders in terms of sub-section (2) thereof. The application is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. This will not, however, prevent the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative, Societies to comply with the procedure as laid down in the latter part of sub-section (1) of section -18 of the aforesaid Act and, thereafter, to pass necessary orders in terms of sub-section (2) thereof. The application is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Let a xerox copy of this order be given to the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of both the parties on their usual undertaking. Application allowed.