A. G. QURCSHI, J. ( 1 ) THIS order shall govern the disposal of M. P. No. 1420 of 1993 Kishan Singh v. State of M. P. and others), M P. No. 1419 of 93 (Shriram v. State of M. P. ). M P, No. 1376 of 93 (Ramsingh v State of m. P. and others) M. P. No. 1393 of 93 (Kanhaiyalal v State of M. P. and others), M. P. No. 1476 of 93 (Ashok v. State of M. P. and others ). M P. No. 1442 of 93 (Radheshyam v. State of M P and others), M. P No 1611 of 93 (Satish Chandra v State of M. P and others), M P No. 1554 of 9. (Shailesh v. state of M. P and others), M. P No. 1482 of 93 (Radheshyam S/o Narhari v Stale of M. P. and others), and M P No. 1615 of 93 (Kanhaiyalal S/o bheklalji v. State of M. P. and another ), tiled by various petitioners challenging the order of the Commissioner and Registrar, Co-operative Societies dated 23 6. 1995, bearing No. Samanya/l/42 issued to all the District Collectors, joint. Deputy and Assistant Registrars of Co-operative Societies M. P. issued in consequence of the order of this Court at Jabalpur Bench in M. P. No. 1111 of 199o (Anirudh Prasad Shastri and another v. State of M. P. and others), dated 21 6 1993, whereby a direction has been issued that all those board of Directors from whom charges were taken in pursuance to Section 49 (8) of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter called the Act)in pursuance to the amendment in the aforesaid section by Amending Act no. 14 of 1990, be given back the charges of the respective societies. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the present petitioner and other petitioners in the other petitions, it has been stated that the Act came into existence in the year 1960 and since then various amendments were made in it, the last amendment in the aforesaid Act was made by Amending Act No 14 of 90 whereby Sections 48 (4), 49 (7-A) (iii) and Section 49 (8) of the Act were amended. These amendments were challenged by various petitions before the High Court of M. P at Jabalpur Bench. These amendments were challenged by various petitions before the High Court of M. P at Jabalpur Bench. The Jabalpur Bench of the m P. High Court deciding M. P. No. 1111 of 90 decided all the petitions, vide its order dated 216. 1993. By this order the amendments made in the act pertaining to Section 48 (4) and Section 49 (8) were declared ultra vires of the Constitution with the further direction that as a result of the aforesaid order Sections 48 (4) and 49 (8) as they stood before the amendment shall continue to be a part of the Act. A direction was also issued that the board of Directors of the Societies who were removed from the post, shall be restored to their original position as a result of the decision in the petition. ( 3 ) THE grievance of the petitioners is that the order in petition M. P. No 1111 of 1990 was specific in directing the State to hand over charge only to those Directors who were petitioners before the Court, but with an intention to extend the benefit illegally to the Board of Directors of the other societies the impugned order has been passed. It has also been averred that the charge of the societies was taken from the earlier Board of Directors under Section 49 (7-A) (iii) of the Act on 28 4. 90 and thereafter the charge of the Societies was with the Registrar of Co-perative Societies. Therefore, it is wrong to say that the charge was taken from the Societies under the provisions of Section 49 (8) of the Act. Therefore, the change could not be handed over to the Board of Directors of the Societies in pursuance of the judgment of the Jubalpur Bench in M P. No. 1111 of 1990- It has also been averred that while handing over the charge to the Board of Directors of the Societies the fact, that some of the Directors were disqualified was also not taken into consideration. Therefore, the impugned order Annexure. P-2 be quashed and the charge of the Societies be directed to be taken by the Registrar. ( 4 ) THE petition has been resisted by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, on the ground that the order impugned was passed after examining the order of the M. P. High Court in M- P. No. 1111 of 90. P-2 be quashed and the charge of the Societies be directed to be taken by the Registrar. ( 4 ) THE petition has been resisted by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, on the ground that the order impugned was passed after examining the order of the M. P. High Court in M- P. No. 1111 of 90. The directions were also specific saying that the charge be restored to the Committees of those Socie societies which was taken from them under Section 49 (8) of the Act. The order impugned has not been passed under any political pressure or with any ulterior motive to benefit a particular political party. It has been admitted that in the instant case the respondent No 3 was elected on 13 6. 84 for a period of three years and the term of the Society came to an end on 12. 6 J987, but the duration of the Board of Directors was extended from time to time by the M. P. Government, initially till 31. 3 88, than till 30 6 88, then 31. 3 89, 21 12. 89 and lastly till 30th April, 1990. Before the expiry of the terra extended till 30. 4 90, vide Notification dated 26 4 90 issued in exercise of the powers under Section 49 (7-A) (iii) of the Act, the term of the Board of directors was terminated with effect from 28. 4 90. As a result in exercise of the powers under Section 49 (7-A) (iv) the charge of the board of Directors was taken by the various authorities of the Registrar of Co-operative societies This order was challenged in M- P. No 1086 of 90 before the M. P High Court at Jabalpur The High Court, vide its order dated 4 5 90 staved the operation of the order dated 28. 4. 90 with a direction that the Hoard of Directors snail continue to manage the respective Societies as was the position before 28. 4. 90. Therefore, the charge of the respective Societies was handed back to the Board of Directors who were managing the Societies before 28 4 90. Since then the Boa d of directors were managing the Societies on the strength of the aforesaid stay order. ( 5 ) THEREAFTER the charge of the Societies was again taken over under subsection (8) of Section 49 of the Act on 1. 8. Since then the Boa d of directors were managing the Societies on the strength of the aforesaid stay order. ( 5 ) THEREAFTER the charge of the Societies was again taken over under subsection (8) of Section 49 of the Act on 1. 8. 1990 in view of the Amending act No. 14 of 1990, whereby provisions of Section 49 (8) were amended. As such after the decision cf the High Court in M P. No. 11/1 of 1990 directing the restoration of charge to the Directors of the societies which had been taken over under Section 49 (8) as amended by Act No. 14 of 1990, was a law declared on the point and, therefore, it was necessary to extend the law to all the Societies constituted similarly As such the order of the registrar has been passed in compliance of the order of the High Court and the law as declared by it was neither mala fide nor passed with a view to extend any undue advantage to any individual or individuals or a party. ( 6 ) THE Board of Directors has also resisted the petition by filing a detailed return wherein the history cf the various amendments in the Act and the extension of the term of Societies from time to time by various Notifications and Ordinances has been stated. The Proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 49 of the Act as it stood before the amendment by Amending Act No. 14 of 90 has also been pressed into service to support the contention that in view of the Resolution of the outgoing Committee of the Society requesting the registrar to hold the election three months in advance of the expiry of the term and the Registrar failing to hold the election, the Registrar shall not assume the charge of the Committee and office bearers of the Committee shall continue to hold the office. On the strength of the aforesaid explanation it has been staled that the respondent was entitled to continue in the office and the charge of the Committee was taken by the Registrar on the strength of the amendment in Section 49 (8)of the Act by the Amending act No 14 of 90 which was struck down by the High Court in M. P No. 1111 of 90 with a further direction to restore the Committees. Therefore, the order of the Registrar in compliance of the order of the High Court and is neither mala fide nor passed with an intention to extend any undue benefit or advantage to the respondents. The annexures of the earlier orders have also been filed along with the return. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner Shri T. N Singh has very elaborately dealt with the provisions of the Act demonstrating that how the act had undergone a change by various amendments and how the terra of the Societies elected in the year 1984 was extended from time to time. According to, him the proviso to Section 49 (8) of the Act is applicable only for the initial term of election and not for the Societies which were enjoying the extended term by subsequent amendments and notifications. His other argument is that those persons who had automatically become disqualified to hold the office could not be reinducted in the Board of Directors in view of the clear provision contained in the Act it self. His third contention is that sub-section (8) of Section 49 of the Act to be read along with sub-section (9) and sub section (10) of Section 49. If read together it will be manifest that the power of restoration of the Society was not available to the respondents nos. 1 and 2 because even if Section 49 (8) has been declared to ultra vires of the Constitution by the High Court, still sub-section (9) and subsection (10) of Section 49 has been held to be valid by the same court, therefore, with the aid of sub-sections (9) and (10) the removal of the Board of Directors was complete and the restoration in any case was not permissible ( 8 ) ON the other hand it has been strenuously argued by the learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 Shri Kulshreshta and the counsel for the Board of Directors Shri Chaphekar and Shri Mathur, senior-counsel, that the order has been passed in compliance with the judgment in M. P. No. 1111 of 90. After the judgment and the restoration of the Societies, an Ex-Minister of Co-operation, State of M. P. has moved the same Bench challenging the action of the Registrar impugned before this Court and an order was already passed directing the petitioners to approach the Registrar for the remedy. After the judgment and the restoration of the Societies, an Ex-Minister of Co-operation, State of M. P. has moved the same Bench challenging the action of the Registrar impugned before this Court and an order was already passed directing the petitioners to approach the Registrar for the remedy. ( 9 ) AFTER considering the respective arguments of the parlies and perusing the Annexures we finds that the judgment in M. P. No. 1111 of 90 has been passed by the Bench at Jabalpur alter consideiing the various provisions of the Act including section 49 (7-A) (iii) and Section 49 (8) of the act. The Court has also considered in para 10 of the order the provisions of sub-section (8) of Section 49 as they stood before the amendment by Act no. 14 of 90 It will be useful to reproduce the respective arguments placed before the Court in M. P. No. 1111 of 1990 in respect of the amendment to sub section (8) of Section 49. The relevant portion is as under :"the petitioners submit that this provision was just and fair and penalised the man ging committee only if it failed to hold the elections and not otherwise. The amended provision, according to the petitioners encourages the Registrar not to hold elections. as he will obtain management of the society for not performing his duties The respondents submit that the purpose is to ensure democracy and avoid members, whose term had expired, to continue in the management thereof The learned Add. A. G. has also submitted that the Registrar takes over the management as a custodian of the faith of members and hence assumes a responsibility of ensuring democratic functioning. It is, therefore, claimed that the amendment does not suffer from any vice. "the Court has considered the aforesaid argument and has discussed the pirit of the Co-operative Movement and the purpose for the enactment in. para 11 of the judgment. Then in para 12 it has been held that apparently the object of the Legislature is bound to be subverted by the present amendment. "the Court has considered the aforesaid argument and has discussed the pirit of the Co-operative Movement and the purpose for the enactment in. para 11 of the judgment. Then in para 12 it has been held that apparently the object of the Legislature is bound to be subverted by the present amendment. Then in para !4 of the aforesaid judgment the provisions of Section 49 (8)ar,d Section 48 (4 of the Act as amended by M P Act No. 14 of 90 were quashed and as a necessary consequence it was held that the provisions in these sections existing immediately before the aforesaid amendment shall be deemed to be continuing legally and validly with a further direction as a necessary consequence to all low the Managing Committee of the Societies to continue to function as before till elections are held in accordance with law, ( 10 ) THE aforesaid order clearly indicates that the Court after considering the various provisions of the Act has come to a conclusion that the charges of the Societies were taken over by the Registrar under Section 49 (8) of the Act as amended by the Amending Act No 14 of 90and a result of the quashing of the aforesaid amendment in Section 49 (8) of the act the charges of the Societies have to be given back which were taken away from them on the strength of the amendment in Section 49 (8 ). Therefore, the order of this Court in M. P. No. 1111 of 90 is based on the assumption that the charges of the societies were taken in exercise of the powers conferred on the Registrar as a result of the amendment in Section 49 (8) of the Act and consequently the restoration was ordered. In view of the aforesaid, now considering the argument that the charges of the Societies were not taken under section 49 (8) of the Amending Act but under some other provision of the Act, will amount to reviewing the order passed in M. P no. 1111 of 90 and obviously for revie. v of an order this is not the proper forum. If the petitioners may be so advised they may move the Bench which passed the order in M. P. No. 1111of 90 placing all the arguments advanced before us before that Bench. 1111 of 90 and obviously for revie. v of an order this is not the proper forum. If the petitioners may be so advised they may move the Bench which passed the order in M. P. No. 1111of 90 placing all the arguments advanced before us before that Bench. ( 11 ) AS regards the other argument about the disqualification of the members, the Bench which had passed the main order was moved by one laxminarayan Sharma raising the points of disqualification and application of the order ot the Court in respect of the petitioners to all the Societies. The court in a summary order dated 8. 7 1993 in M P No. 1719 of 93 has held that the order of the Court is clear and does not need any further clarification in case, the order of the Court was being disobeyed intentionally the Court would take action against such person under Art. 215 of the constitution. A direction has been given to approach the Registrar, Co-operative societies for their grievance about incurring of disqualification of any Member of the Society or extending any benefit to any individual or the Society. It has also been brought to our notice that during the pendency of this petiiion the State Government has issued a notification under Section 91 of the Act modifying the disqualification clause. This notification has also been challenged before us. Inour opinion this notification has to be challenged before the Jabalpur Bench in view of the judgment in Balkrishnadas v. Harnarain and others (1979 JLJ, 745 ). ( 12 ) IN view of the aforesaid position, we are of the opinion, that no relief can be granted to the petitioners in these petitions seeking the interpretation of the judgment passed in M. P. 1111 of 90 in the light of the various provisions of the Act. The proper forum for the redressal of the grievance of the petitioners, if any. is the same Bench which has decided M. P. No. 1111 of 1990 ( 13 ) TN view of the foregoing discussion this petition and the other petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .