Honble CHOPRA, J.—By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the validity of section 32(1) and (2) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 and has prayed that it be declared ultra vires and void not only of section 14 of the Constitution of India but section 29 and 33 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act. The petitioner has further claimed that the non-petitioners may be restrained from interfering with the day to-day working of the petitioner society and the proceedings initiated in pursuance of notice dated 17.5.93 be quashed and set aside and the respondent No. 3 that is the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Department, Bikaner be restrained from interfering with the day to day working of the petitioner society. (2) The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition briefly stated are that one non-petitioner no. 4 Shri Amarsingh was elected as Chairman of the petitioner society along with certain other persons who were elected as members of the Executive Committee. When it was found that the Chairman has committed various illegalities and irregularities with vested interest at the cost of and against the interest of the society and its members or has misused his powers with ulterior motive then majority of the members requested the controversy may be resolved about the activities of non-petitioner no. 4. When inspite of the repeated requests and requisition having been sent under section 30 of the Act, the general body meeting was not called, the members of the society moved an application under section 31 to the Asstt. Registrar for calling the general body meeting. (3) A notice was issued to the members of the general body in forming them that the general body meeting has been fixed on 23.4.93 at 1.00 PM to discuss the agenda which included a no- confidence motion against non-petitioner no.4 Amarsingh as also withdrawal of the Chief Executive Officer. In the general body meeting the no-confidence motion against the non-petitioner no. 4 was passed. Request was made that non-petitioner no.4 should not preside over the meeting. That application has been marked as Annex. 2 and the refusal of the Vice-President to preside over the meeting has been marked as Annex. 3. The resolution moved by the members has been marked as Annex.4. The no-confidence motion against non-petitioner no. 4 was unanimously passed. Request was made that non-petitioner no.4 should not preside over the meeting. That application has been marked as Annex. 2 and the refusal of the Vice-President to preside over the meeting has been marked as Annex. 3. The resolution moved by the members has been marked as Annex.4. The no-confidence motion against non-petitioner no. 4 was unanimously passed. Other resolutions were also carried out, the copy of the proceedings of the general body meeting has been marked as Annex. 5. However, non-petitioner no. 4 moved an application under Section 32(1) before the non-petitioner no. 3 challenging the above resolution. (4) The Joint Registrar before whom such an application was made issued a notice under section 32(1) to the Executive Officer only vide his order dated 17.5.93. Copy of that has been marked as Annex. 7. Section 32(2) of the Act provides that as soon as such a notice is issued by the Registrar, the resolution automatically stands suspended and this is how the validity of section 32(2) of the Act has been challenged because it provides to the Registrar are arbitrary, unreasonable and excessive. Bye-law 11(8) of the society provides that general body has the power to remove an elected Chairman of the society and when that has been done continuation of that person as the Chairman of the Executive Committee is against the interest of the society. Rule 38(5) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 1966 also empowers the general body to remove the Chairman and officers of the society. When general body has passed a resolution expressing no confidence in the Chairman issuing such a notice by the Joint Registrar which makes that resolution ineffective is contrary to the interest of the society and results in misuse of the powers and is collusive in character; and, therefore, it has been claimed that the action of the non-petitioner no.3 is arbitrary and against the democratic Cooperative Movement. Certain allegations are contained in the writ petition against the Chairman and thereby it has been tried to be shown that the general body was very much interested in removing such a Chairman who was acting against the interest of the society. (5) No reply has been filed on behalf of the Department. However, respondent no. 4 has chosen to file a reply. (5) No reply has been filed on behalf of the Department. However, respondent no. 4 has chosen to file a reply. In that reply a preliminary objection has been taken that the Manager of the society has no locus stand to file a writ in the name of the Samiti challenging the notice issued by the Registrar for the cancellation of the resolution of the general body. This writ petition has been filed by the Manager with oblique consideration because he was aggrieved against the posting of the Chief Executive Officer in the Samiti at the behest of respondent no. 4. (6) It was claimed that majority of the members never gave an application for calling the meeting as required by section 31(1) of the Act of 1965. This is a mis-statement of fact. It was also claimed that no requisition was ever given to the committee of the society for calling the general meeting. However certain members moved an application to the Asstt. Registrar of Cooperative Society directly for holding the meeting and he did issue a notice for calling that meeting. The order of the Asstt. Registrar has been filed as Ann. R. 4/1 and it nowhere recites that the committee has not called a meeting on any requisition of the members. The order calling the meeting has not been issued by the Registrar but by the Asstt. Registrar; whereas powers under Section 31(1) of the Act can only be exercised by the Registrar and powers under Section 31(2) of the Act can be exercised by any Officer authorised by the Registrar. Out of 210 members 106 members attended the meeting and the resolution was passed by the majority of them. According to the respondent no. 4 the entire meeting was an eye-wash. Violent atmosphere was created on account of the behavior of certain members. It was also claimed that the general body has no power, to remove the Chairman of the Society. (7) Power lies with the Registrar under section 36 to do so and, therefore, the entire proceedings are nonest. Allegations contained against the Chairman are totally false. Section 31(1) and (2) are intra-vires. They provide for the suitable guidelines and, therefore, no unguided powers have been conferred on the Registrar to act under section 32. (7) Power lies with the Registrar under section 36 to do so and, therefore, the entire proceedings are nonest. Allegations contained against the Chairman are totally false. Section 31(1) and (2) are intra-vires. They provide for the suitable guidelines and, therefore, no unguided powers have been conferred on the Registrar to act under section 32. Section 16 of the General Clauses Act does not apply in this case because it is not a case of appointment but a case of election and, therefore, unless the power is conferred on the society to remove the Chairman even if certain provisions have been made in the Rules. i.e. Rules 35(5) of the Rules of 1966 or for that matter in the bye laws, they being contrary to the provisions of the Act cannot be sustained. It was also claimed by respondent no. 4 that he has deposited the amount demanded by the Manager although not in 15 days but within a reasonable time. (8) A rejoinder has been filed to the reply filed by respondent no.4 in which the contents of the writ petition were reiterated and the contentions raised in the reply were controverted. It was claimed that powers under section 36 conferred upon the Registrar are totally independent of the powers which have been exercised by the general body. These powers as per Mr. Joshi relate to suspension and removal but the general body has the power to file the proceedings on behalf of the society. In filing the writ petition, no malafides are involved as on account of the action of the Joint Registrar the entire functioning of the society has come to a stand-still and that has affected the affairs of the society and, therefore, the society is an aggrieved party. It was also claimed that all the members have been served with notice under postal certificate and that is an accepted mode of service of notice and it need not sent by registered post. - (9) We have heard Shri KM, Joshi appearing for the petitioner, Shri L.S. Udawat, Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State and Shri M.S. Singhvi appearing for respondent no. 4. (10) First we take up for consideration the challenge to the validity of section 32(1) and (2) of the Cooperative Societies Act. Section 32 reads as under: — "32. Power of Registrar to rescind certain resolutions. Advocate General appearing for the State and Shri M.S. Singhvi appearing for respondent no. 4. (10) First we take up for consideration the challenge to the validity of section 32(1) and (2) of the Cooperative Societies Act. Section 32 reads as under: — "32. Power of Registrar to rescind certain resolutions. (1) If in the opinion of the Registrar any resolution passed at the meeting of any cooperative society or committee thereof is opposed to the objects of the society or is prejudicial to the interest of the society, or is in excess of the powers of the society, the Registrar, after giving the cooperative society an opportunity of being heard, may by order in writing rescind the resolution in whole or in part specifying the reasons therefore. (2) On receipt of an intimation from the Registrar, of his proposal to rescind the resolution under sub-section (1) the said resolution shall cease to have effect until the Registrar passes final orders in the matter." Both the clauses (1) and (2) of section 32 of the Act of 1965 are under challenge. It was argued by Mr. K.N. Joshi that powers conferred on the Registrar under sub-section (1) and (2) are totally arbitrary. They are devoid of any guide-lines. It is not clear to whom an application under section 31(1) can be made and when it can be made. This submission was stoutly opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General as well as by Shri M.S. Singhvi. They contended that section 32(1) of the Act provides enough guide-lines; for the exercise of the powers and, therefore, neither the powers who have been conferred the powers to act as Registrar under section 32 (1) of the Act, have the requisite powers to issue a notice under section 32(1) of the Act if they are prima facie satisfied that any of the three conditions mentioned in section 31(1) of the Act exists, and if they so act, then, it is quite reasonable that those resolutions of the society shall remain suspended till the matter is finally decided by the Registrar. Powers under section 32(1) of the Act can be exercised by the Registrar if. Powers under section 32(1) of the Act can be exercised by the Registrar if. any resolution passed at the meeting of Cooperative Society or the committee thereof (i) is opposed to the objects of the society, or (ii) is prejudicial to the interest of the society or (iii) is in excess of the powers of the society. Those resolutions can be rescinded by the Registrar only after giving the cooperative society or its committee an opportunity of being heard, if the Registrar chooses to rescind the resolution in whole or in part then he has to pass an order in writing specifying the reasons therefor. (11) Thus only those resolution which are opposed to the objects of the society or are prejudicial to the interest of the society or are prejudicial to the interests of the powers of the society alone can be rescinded and such resolutions certainly should be rescinded by the Registrar because strictly speaking the cooperative certainty should be rescinded by the Registrar because strictly speaking the cooperative societies are not fully autonomous bodies. Although they have been established to manage the financial, economic interests of its members at the grass roots or other leaves they work under the guidance and control of the Authorities of the Cooperative Department. If the Registrar is prima facie satisfied that any of the three conditions exist then he can certainly issue a notice to the society to show cause why such a resolution should not be rescinded. Before doing so he has to be satisfied prima facie that either of the three conditions exist. Thus enough guidelines are provided in section 32(1) for the exercise of the powers by the Registrar. These powers can not be considered to be either unguided or unbridled. They, in our considered view are also not arbitrary but these guidelines have been incorporated in section 32(1) of the Act for proper control of the business of the Cooperative societies by the Registrar so that they may not act against the interest of the society and serve individual interest or may not act in excess of the powers conferred on them or may not act again the objects of the Society. Thus enough safeguards have been provided for the exercise of these powers. Thus enough safeguards have been provided for the exercise of these powers. (12) Firstly, when prima facie the Registrar is satisfied that any of these three conditions exists he has to issue a notice to show cause, then he has to afforded an opportunity to the aggrieved society or its committee of being heard and then he has to pass an order in writing assigning the reasons for rescinding the resolution. Not only that, such an order is appealable. Any final order passed under section 32(1) is appealable under section 124 of the Cooperative Societies Act and is revisable by the Government and the Registrar under Section 128 of the Act. Section 128(2) even confers powers on the Government and the Registrar to pass any interlocutory orders as it thinks fit to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated. Thus enough safeguards have been provided in the Act so that these powers may not be exercised arbitrarily. So far as section 32(2) is concerned, once the Registrar comes to the conclusion that the resolution sought to be rescinded is opposed to the objects of the society or prejudicial to the interest of the society or is in excess of the powers of the society, then certainly the Registrar should have the powers to stay the operation of that resolution. (13) This is what has been provided by section 32(2) and, therefore, the powers conferred on the Registrar are not arbitrary or unreasonable in any manner and, therefore, we are firmly of the view that section 32(1) and (2) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act 1965 is neither violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, nor is violative of any of the other provisions of the Act, and, therefore, it is hereby held that the portion of section 32(1) and (2) of Act of 1965 are intravires. Thus to this extent the contention of Mr. K.N. Joshi fails. Now we come to the next submission which has been made on behalf of the petitioner that the Joint Registrar has exercised the powers under section 32(1) of the Act arbitrarily. It has been contended in the writ petition that the Chairman of the committee acted against the interest of the society with oblique motive and, therefore, the society wanted to move a no-confidence motion against the Chairman and for recalling the Chief Executive Officer from the society. It has been contended in the writ petition that the Chairman of the committee acted against the interest of the society with oblique motive and, therefore, the society wanted to move a no-confidence motion against the Chairman and for recalling the Chief Executive Officer from the society. Majority of the members requested the Chairman and Secretary to call a general body meeting of the society. (14) When repeated requests were not given due weight a requisition under section 30 was given to the President and Secretary for arranging the meeting of the general body but that too was ignored and thereafter a written requisition was sent to the Asstt. Registrar who has been conferred with the powers of the Registrar under section 31 to call a general body meeting and it was accordingly called. Respondent no. 4 has contended that majority of the members did not give such a requisition, calling for a meeting under section 31(1) of the 1965 Act. No requisition was given to the committee of the society for calling the general body meeting. Such a requisition can be given by 1/5 of the members. Thus the requisition given by the majority of the members or not is beside the point. (15) The contention of the society is that the requisition was given to the Chairman and the Secretary who represented the committee; whereas respondent no. 4 has contended that no such requisition was given to the committee. Be that as it may, it is a disputed question of fact which can be agitated before the competent authority. What is material is that the Asstt. Registrar under section 31 as per cooperative department notification dated 1st of January, 1966 and 8.02.1974, as mentioned in the schedule attached to the Rules, called such a meeting and that meeting was fixed on 23.4.93 and the agenda that was issued included consideration of no-confidence motion against the Chairman and for that meeting notices were sent under postal certificate and a resolution expressing no-confidence against the Chairman was carried out unani-mously by members present. It is alleged that the meeting was attended by 106 out of 210 members and, therefore, the quorum was complete. It is alleged that the meeting was attended by 106 out of 210 members and, therefore, the quorum was complete. The general body in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under rule 38(5) of the Rules of 1966 which provides that the Chairman or any officer of the society may be removed from the office by a resolution of a general meeting convened for the purpose and bye law 11(8) which further authorises the general body to remove the elected executive committee or its members or the Chairman passed a resolution expressing no confidence in the Chairman and accordingly the Chairman was removed on certain allegations. (16) It was contented by Mr. M.S. Singhvi that although rule 38(5) and bye law was 11(8) do provide for the removal of the Chairman by a resolution of the general body meeting which is specifically convened for the purpose but this is contrary to the provisions of the Act, and, therefore, the general body has no power to remove an elected Chairman of the Executive Committee. According to him, section 36 authorises Registrar to remove the committee or member thereof and the general body has no such power conferred by any of the provisions. Under Rule 38 only a procedure is provided for exercise of the powers of the Registrar. Rule 38(5) and the by-laws being inconsistent with the main Act are void and this fact has been pleaded by them in para 16 of the reply on page 10. It was claimed that the right to participate in the election is a right which flows from the statute. It is not a fundamental right and, therefore, the question of democratic process is not involved in the matter. (17) In this respect reliance has been placed on the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Gajanan Narain Patil and Ors. Vs. Dattatriya Waman Patil and others (1). This was a case of consideration of no-confidence motion against the Chairman of a cooperative society (Sugar mill) established under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules of 1961. Their Lordships observed that members of the committee of the Management who are entitled to sit and vote at any meeting of the committee can pass such a resolution. This was a case of consideration of no-confidence motion against the Chairman of a cooperative society (Sugar mill) established under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules of 1961. Their Lordships observed that members of the committee of the Management who are entitled to sit and vote at any meeting of the committee can pass such a resolution. Thus conceding the right of the members of the meaning committee to pass such a resolution of no-confidence it was held that the right to participate in voting is a statutory right and not a fundamental right. It was claimed that when the main Act does not confer any powers on the general body to remove an elected Chairman the Rules and bye laws of the cooperative society which may be in conflict with the legislative enactments or for that matter the executive instructions issued by Government through circulars if they conflict with the legislative enactment they have to be held to be ultravires and in this respect reliance has been placed on the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court rendered in Babaji Kondaji Garad Vs. Nasik Merchants Cooperative Bank Ltd. Nasik and others (2), Reliance was further placed on the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. H. Ganesh Kamath etc. (3), wherein their Lordships have observed that no rules can be framed which are ultra vires of the provisions of the Act i.e. no rule in Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963 can be ultra vires of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (18) Reliance was also placed on the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Banwaridas Vs. Sumerchand (4), wherein it was held that if the petitioner makes prayer for getting the election of the candidate set aside on the ground that he was guilty of corrupt practices and further prayed that he should be got elected, the respondent claiming that the petitioner cannot be declared elected because -, he himself is a guilty of the corrupt practices was not sustained because such a procedure to challenge the relief by the petitioner to challenge the relief by the petitioner to get himself elected to be opposed on the basis of petitioner indulging in corrupt practices was not provided by the Act or the Rules and thus election being a right flowing from the statute no such claim can be made by the respondent which was not available to him under the statute. Reliance was also placed on the recent decision of their Lordships of the Supreme "Court rendered in M.G. Pandke and others Vs. Municipal Council Hinganghat District Wardha reported in J.T. (5), wherein it has been held by their Lordships that Municipal Council cannot frame bye laws contrary to the mandate of the regulations. Bye-laws which are contrary to the regulations have been struck down being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Now this/has to be seen whether under rule 38, powers conferred on the body under rule 38(5) or bye-laws 11(8) are contrary to the provisions of the Act. Section 36 deals with the removal of the committee or a member thereof. It has no relation to the removal of the Chairman of the committee. The entire committee can be removed under section 36; or its members can be removed. Chairman of committee is an elected post and, therefore, that is not covered by section 36. Of course Chairman being a member of the committee can be removed as a member of the committee but section 36 no where provides that an elected Chairman can be removed by the Registrar under their penal powers. Chairman of committee is an elected post and, therefore, that is not covered by section 36. Of course Chairman being a member of the committee can be removed as a member of the committee but section 36 no where provides that an elected Chairman can be removed by the Registrar under their penal powers. If the committee or its members are found persistently making default or are found negligent in performance of duties imposed upon it or him by the Act or the Rules or the bye-laws, or commits any act which is prejudicial to the interest of the society or its members or wilfully disobeys the notice issued by the Registrar for the purpose of securing proper implementation of the cooperative production and other development programmers approved or undertaken by the Govt. or is otherwise not discharging its functions properly the Registrar may after giving the committee or the member, as the case may be, a reasonable opportunity to "state its or his objection, if any, by order in writing remove the committee and appoint an Administrator or remove a member and get the vacancies filled up for the remainder of the members of outgoing members according to the bye-laws. This is a penal provision insisted in the Act to take action against the committee or its members for the acts of commission and omission. It has nothing to do with the lack of confidence which is expressed by the society in its elected committee or its Chairman. (19) The persons who are occupying such an elected posts can be removed by the general body even without charges if the committee or its Chairman or office bearers have forfeited the confidence of its members. Section 29 provides that the final authority in a cooperative society shall subject to the provisions of the Act and the Rules, vest in the general body of the members. A proviso has been added to section 29 which provides that where the bye laws of cooperative societies provide for constitution of a smaller body, consisting of the delegates of the members of the society elected in and in accordance with such bye-laws the smaller body shall exercise such powers of the general body as may be prescribed or as may be specified in the bye-laws of the society. Thus the final authority rests in the general body of the cooperative society and if anything is provided in the bye-laws then that power is saved by the first proviso to section 29 of the Act. The bye-law provide for the election of the members of the committee and Chairman etc. in the bye-laws 9, 10, and 11 and, therefore, those powers are definitely saved by section 29. Section 30(l)(b) provides for election in the prescribed manner of the members of the committee other than the nominated members by the members of the society in its annual general meeting. It further authorises the annual general meeting to consider any other matter which may be brought forward in accordance with the bye-laws. The section 30(l)(b) gives a mandate that the annual general body of the society has the power to elect the committee and to consider any item brought forward for consideration according to the bye-laws. Bye-law 11(8) provides that the general body of the society has the power to remove a Chairman of the society and, therefore, if any item is brought for consideration of the general body meeting as regards expression of no-confidence in its Chairman specially convened for that purpose, it can pass such a resolution. (20) Thus the Act grants a mandate to the general body to consider such a proposal. It is not contrary to law but rather it is in accordance with law i.e. the provisions of rule 38(5) of the Rules of 1966 are in accordance with the powers conferred on the general body under sections 29 and 30 of the Act. The powers that are conferred under section 36 are independent-penal provisions conferred on the Registrar by the Act in the interest of the society if the committee or its members act in a manner provided by section 36 and, therefore, firstly, section 36 does not relate to the removal of the Chairman except through a no-confidence motion, and secondly, sections 29 and 30 read with rule 38(5) and by-law 11(8) categorically provide that a Chairman of the committee who is elected by the general body or its managing committee can be removed by the general body. In this respect, Mr. Joshi has placed reliance on a decision of the Kerala High Court rendered in Narayan Nayyar and others Vs. In this respect, Mr. Joshi has placed reliance on a decision of the Kerala High Court rendered in Narayan Nayyar and others Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (6), wherein it has been held that the removal of the President by the Managing Committee of the Cooperative Society by expressing no-confidence in him is valid because the appointing or electing authority always has the power to remove the person who was appointed or elected by it. The learned Judges observed that the legislature was not totally averse to the idea of a President or any other office bearer of the committee being removed by no confidence motion. On the other hand, the frames of the Act and the Rules and in mind the situation when no confidence motion would be discussed and put to vote, otherwise, there is no justification in having a provision in the nature of what is contained in sub- section (3) of section 31 of the Act. It is true that no specific provisions in the Act empowers the committee of Directors of a cooperative society to pass a no-confidence motion against the President or to replace him before the term of the committee; but while considering the democratic and cooperative principles underlying the cooperative law, it could not be said that the absence of a specific provision debars committee of the management from changing its office bearers in whom they have no-confidence. (21) Reliance was also placed on the single Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in N. Venkat Ratanam Naidu Vs. District Collector Nellore and others (7), wherein it has been held that even the Directors of a Cooperative Society are empowered to pass a no-confidence motion against any of the office bearers including the President. There also there was no provision specifically authorising the body of Directors to pass a no-confidence motion, but the learned Judge observed that two features stand out predominantly in relation to the President and other office bearers of Cooperative Society. The President and other office bearers can be elected by the committee and not by the general body and, secondly, the cooperative society like a Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti being basic democratic unit intended to help its members to manage some of their affairs for themselves in a democratic, may and have power to remove the office bearers whom they have elected. Under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules of 1965 and the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules of 1966 and the bye-laws the Committee of the management of the society is elected by the general body, and, therefore, the committee or its President can certainly be removed by a no-confidence motion by the general body in exercise of power inherent in the general body of the society because if it has the right to select them the right to remove such office bearers is also very much inherent in it. In this connections reference may be made to rule 8(m) of the Rules of 1966. Rule 8 of the Rules of 1966 provides as to about what bye-laws can be framed and sub-clause (m) of Rules provides that bye-laws of a cooperative society can provide for the mode of appointment of the members of the committee by election by its general body and, therefore, their removal by a no-confidence motion is a power which is very much available to them under the General Clauses Act also. Clauses (xxvii) and (xxxi) of section 148 of the Act authorise the society to frame bye-laws as regards the appointment, suspension and removal of other officers and term of office of such officers and further authorises it to lay down qualifications for appointment of officers and other employees and the conditions of their service. These rules have been framed in the exercise of the powers exercisable by the Rule-making Authority under section 148 of the Act of 1965. (22) Clause 23 of Section 148 provides for election of the members by the general body of the cooperative society. That rule certainly enables the society to frame bye-laws about election which inherently includes the power of removal in a body which elects it by passing a no-confidence motion against that office-bearer. Moreover such a right has been conferred on it by necessary implication when rule 38(5) and bye-law 11(8) are read in conjunction with sections 29 and 30(1) and (3) of the Act of 1965. Therefore, this contention of Mr. Singhvi that rule 38(5) and bye-law 11(8) are contrary to the provisions of the Act and are beyond legislative competence of the Rule framing authority or society cannot be sustained. (23) It was next contended that no registered notice has been served on the members as provided by section 142 of the Act. Therefore, this contention of Mr. Singhvi that rule 38(5) and bye-law 11(8) are contrary to the provisions of the Act and are beyond legislative competence of the Rule framing authority or society cannot be sustained. (23) It was next contended that no registered notice has been served on the members as provided by section 142 of the Act. The provisions of section 142 are not mandatory in character. Election or for that matter a removal of the committee and mode of appointment and removal of other officers and duties and powers of the committee and mode of appointment and removal of other officer and duties and powers of the committee and such officers and their term can be prescribed by the Rules and the bye-laws. Bye-law 9(4)(2) do provides that for the general body meeting the notice can be sent under postal certificate and, therefore, when the notice of the meeting has been sent through postal certificate it is enough compliance of the Rules. When the general body has expressed its lack of confidence in its Chairman and has passed a resolution to remove him for good, bad or insufficient reasons, then the joint Registrar should not have issued a notice under section 32(1) of the Act to rescind that resolution because passing of such a resolution is neither opposed to the objects of the society nor it is prejudicial to the objects of the society nor it is prejudicial to the interest of the society nor it is in excess of the powers of the society. The society or its general body has power to elect a managing committee and to remove it and, therefore, this power if it has been exercised by the general body in a specifically convened meeting for that purpose called by an authorised person i.e. Assistant Registrar, who has been conferred the powers of the Registrar under sec. 31 of the Act, then the exercise of such a choice by the general body is neither beyond the powers of the society nor it is opposed to the object of the society and it cannot be termed to be prejudicial to the interest of the society. 31 of the Act, then the exercise of such a choice by the general body is neither beyond the powers of the society nor it is opposed to the object of the society and it cannot be termed to be prejudicial to the interest of the society. If it is to be treated prima facie to be against the interests of the society then an inquiry ought to have been instituted by the Joint Registrar to find out as to how it is prejudicial to the interest of the society. If a validly convened meeting of the general body expresses no-confidence in its Chairman which can be done in exercise of the powers conferred on it under rule 38(5) of the Rules of 1966 read with bye-law 11(8) coupled with the powers conferred on the general body, by section 29 and 30 (l)(b)(e) of the Act, then that act of the general body cannot be treated to be prejudicial to the interest of the society and the Joint Registrar is not expected to over rule that will of its members. (24) No Chairman can be thrust upon the general body if it expresses lack of confidence in him for good, bad or indifferent reasons. That right vested in a general body of the society cannot be lightly interfered by the Officers of the cooperative department except when they exercise their powers under section 36 of the Act for the reasons and grounds provided in that section. If the post is elective then the elected person can be removed by the persons who have elected him. It is not a case of taking penal action under section 36 by the Registrar which may require reasons for it. The very spirit of such an election is that one who is elected by a particular body or its committee can be removed by a general body if he forfeits the confidence of the general body and, therefore, the exercise of these statutory powers by the General Body cannot be interfered by the Joint Registrar under section 32(1) of the Act. Such an action on his part is totally arbitrary and unreasonable and, therefore, his action in issuing notice Annex. 7 dated 17.5.93 cannot be sustained and Annex. Such an action on his part is totally arbitrary and unreasonable and, therefore, his action in issuing notice Annex. 7 dated 17.5.93 cannot be sustained and Annex. 7 deserves to be quashed because he has not exercised these powers conferred on him under section 32(1) of the Act in a reasonable manner and for any compelling reasons. (25) Now so far as the preliminary objection of Mr. M.S. Singhvi is concerned that the society is not an aggrieved party and the Manager of the society cannot file a writ petition, suffice it to say that if the general body of the society has expressed lack of its confidence in its Chairman and that Chairman is thrust upon the society it certainly prejudices the interests of the society as its work has been brought to a standstill and secondly the bye-laws 13(12) authorises the Manager of the society to file any legal proceedings on behalf of the society or to defend the society if its issued. Thus the society is certainly an aggrieved party if it is asked to function under the orders of an authority i.e. a Chairman in whom they have expressed their no-confidence and, therefore, when the society is certainly an aggrieved party and if it authorises its manager to bring any proceedings on behalf of the society as per bye-law 13(12) of the Byelaws that cannot be assailed. Thus this preliminary objection of Mr. M.S. Singhvi also deserves to be over-ruled. (26) In the result, we uphold the validity of section 32(1) and (2) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. We also uphold the validity of Rule 38(5) of the Rules of 1966 as also bye-law 11(8) of the Byelaws. However, the notice Annex. 7 dated 17.5.93 issued by the Joint Registrar in exercise of his powers under section 32(1) of the Act of 1965 is hereby quashed. The preliminary objection raised by the respondent no. 4 as regards the compe-tence of the petitioner society to bring these proceedings before this Court through its Manager also stands over-ruled. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly on merits with no orders as to costs.