Ram Chandra v. State of Rajasthan (22) — 1993 DIGILAW 93 (RAJ)

Honble CHOPRA, J.—By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner Ramchandra has prayed for the following reliefs:- 1. that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order Ex.4 dated 26.3.1992 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bikaner as also the order Ex. 5 dated 28.3.1992 passed by the Election Officer to conduct the elections on 7.4.1992 may be quashed in toto and all proceedings in pursuance of these orders may also be treated as cancelled. 2. that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order of the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bikaner dated 22.1.1992 as also the appellate order Ex. 3 dated 12.3.1992 passed by the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jodhpur may also be quashed and any appropriate writ, order or directions may be given which may meet the ends of justice in the case. (2) The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition briefly stated are : that the petitioner himself claims to be the Chairman of the Panchu Ram Sewa Sahkari Samiti, Village Panchu, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner. He has submitted that he received a memorandum of more than l//5th members of the General Body i.e. 416 members out of the total 1600 members to convene a general meeting of the General Body of the Society. It is alleged that in pursuance of this memorandum, a meeting of the Managing Committee of the Society was held on 7.2.1991 and in that meeting, a resolution was passed that the meeting of the General Body of the Society be held on 23.2.1991. In the meanwhile, on 20.2.1991, the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative, Societies, Bikaner informed that the resolution of the Managing Committee of the Society dated 7.2.1991 to convene a meeting of the General Body of the Society on 23.2.1991 is set-aside in exercise of his powers conferred under s. 32 (1) of the Rajasthan Co- operative Societies Act, 1965 (for Short the Act). (3) However, inspite of it, a meeting of the General Body of the Society was held on 23.2.1991 and in that meeting, the respondents No. 4 to 9, who were earlier elected as members of the Managing Committee of the Society in its General Body meeting held on 12/16.1.1991 were expelled from the membership of the Society because they were responsible for the back-door-entry. According to the petitioner, as per s. 29 of the Act, to decide about the membership of a particular person, the General Body of the Society is the final authority. He has submitted that though the General Body of the Society has decided to expel respondents No.4 to 9 from the membership of the Society in exercise of its powers under s. 29 of the Act but despite this, the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bikaner issued a notice on 6.3.1991 to show cause as to why the resolution passed on 23.2.1991 in the meeting of the General Body of the Society can be not revoked and cancelled under s. 32 (1) of the Act. (4) When such a notice was issued, a writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2612 of 1991 was filed before this Court and that writ petition came to be decided by a learned single Judge of this Court vide his order dated 4.9.1991. While deciding that writ petition, the learned single Judge has passed the following order: — "In this view of the matter, I do not find that there is any substance in this writ petition. However, it is directed that in case, the petitioner files his objections before the Deputy Registrar, the Deputy Registrar would consider all such objections including the objection about the competence of the Deputy Registrar, to pass the impugned order. The Deputy Registrar would decide the controversy within a period of one month from the date the certified copy of this order is produced before the Deputy Registrar by the petitioner. The parties agree to appear before the Deputy Registrar on 25.09.1991. It is expected that the Deputy Registrar would decide the controversy by 25.10.1991. Till then, the position as it is existing today shall be maintained. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs." The aforesaid order was passed in the presence of Shri R.C. Gaur, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri P.C. Sharma, the learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3 and Shri B.N. Calla, the learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 4 to 8. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs." The aforesaid order was passed in the presence of Shri R.C. Gaur, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri P.C. Sharma, the learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3 and Shri B.N. Calla, the learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 4 to 8. (5) However, it is alleged that the petitioner did not appear before the learned Deputy Registrar on 25.9.1991 as per the directions of the learned single Judge in his order dated 4.9.1991 because he did not receive the certified copy of the order passed by this Court. According to the petitioner, the certified copy of the order dated 4.9.1991 passed by the learned single Judge was made available to him on 28.11.1991. He has submitted that he sent an application to the Deputy Registrar that he is ill and therefore, he is unable to present himself before him. However, the Deputy Registrar has decided the matter vide his order dated 22.1.1992 and cancelled the resolution passed by the General Body of the Society in its meeting held on 23.2.1991. (6) Against that order dated 22.1.1992 of the learned Deputy Registrar, an appeal was filed before the Additional Registrar and that too came to be rejected vide his order Ex. 2 dated 12.3.1992. It may be stated here that the petitioner has only been supplied with a copy of the operative portion of the order dated 12.3.1992 passed by the Additional Registrar. It is alleged that after the rejection of the appeal by the learned Additional Registrar, the Deputy Registrar vide his order Ex.4 dated 26.3. 1992 directed the Election Officer to hold the elections of the Office Bearers of the Panchu Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti and accordingly, the Election Officer vide his order dated 28.2.1992 has issued the election programme. The petitioner has challenged the order Ex. 4 dated 26.3.1992 and Ex. 5 dated 28.3.1992. 1992 directed the Election Officer to hold the elections of the Office Bearers of the Panchu Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti and accordingly, the Election Officer vide his order dated 28.2.1992 has issued the election programme. The petitioner has challenged the order Ex. 4 dated 26.3.1992 and Ex. 5 dated 28.3.1992. (7) It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that respondents No. 4 to 9 have been expelled from the membership of the Society by its General Body and that resolution of the General Body of the Society expelling the respondents No. 4 to 9 from the membership of the Society has been cancelled by the learned Deputy Registrar vide his order dated 22.1.1992 in exercise of his powers under s. 32 (1) of the Act, which has been confirmed by the learned Additional Registrar vide his order Ex. 2 dated 12.3.1992 and thereafter, in pursuance of the directions given by the learned Deputy Registrar vide his order Ex. 4 dated 26.3.1992 to hold the elections of the Office bearers of the Society, the Election Officer has issued the election programme to be held on 7.4.1992 vide his order Ex. 5 dated 28.3.1992. He has further contended that the learned single Judge of this Court vide his order Ex. 1 dated 4.9.1991 has ordered to maintain the existing position but that order has also not been complied with and the petitioner is being deprived of his rights by persons who sought back-door entry in violation of s. 33 of the Act and have got themselves elected to the Managing Committee of Society with the help of the learned Deputy Registrar and the Additional Registrar. His contention is that such elections should only be held after such controversy regarding membership of persons is resolved by the Court and therefore, the order Ex.4 dated 26.3.1992 and Ex. 5 dated 28.3.1992 be quashed. His contention is that such elections should only be held after such controversy regarding membership of persons is resolved by the Court and therefore, the order Ex.4 dated 26.3.1992 and Ex. 5 dated 28.3.1992 be quashed. (8) A return has been filed on behalf of respondent No.7, in which it has been contended that elections of the Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Panchu were held on 16.1.1992 and in those elections, seven members were elected and therefore, once the elections have taken place on 16.1.1992, the petitioner does not remain as Chairman of the Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Panchu and he had no right to hold any meeting of the Managing Committee of the Society on 7.2.1991 to convene a meeting of the General Body of the Society on 23.2:1991 and, therefore, the entire proceedings taken by the petitioner are illegal because he was no more Chairman of the Society. According to respondent No.7, the respondents No. 4 to 9 who were expelled vide resolution dated 23.2.1991 were duly elected members of the Managing Committee and the petitioner has no authority to expel them and even to call the meeting of the General Body of the Society and to pass such a resolution. According to him, the entire proceedings are ab initio void and it was because of this that the learned Deputy Registrar has served a notice to the petitioner for cancellation of the resolution under s. 32 (1) of the Act. (9) It was further submitted that in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2612 of 1991, the learned single Judge has directed that the parties should appear before the Deputy Registrar on 25.9.1991 and a time limit has been given to decide the matter within one month. This order was passed in the presence of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, respondents No.l to 3 and respondents No.4 to 9 and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to present himself, before the learned Deputy Registrar on 25.9.1991 to file his objections including the objection about the competence of the Deputy Registrar to pass the impugned order under s. 32 (1) of the Act but still, he failed to do so. His presence and filing of objections were not dependent to the filing of the copy of the order passed by the learned single Judge because the parties agreed to appear before the learned Deputy Registrar on 25.9.1991 and, therefore, that could not have been avoided. However, the learned Deputy Registrar gave a number of opportunities to the petitioner for raising objections but he failed to do so and therefore, he has decided the matter exparte against him on 22.1.1992. Against that order, the appeal filed by the petitioner before the learned Additional Registrar was also rejected vide order Ex. 2 dated 12.3.1992. The stay order of the Court to maintain status quo was to operate only till the matter was decided by the learned Deputy Registrar and thereafter, no stay operated thereafter. Thus, the entire proceedings are absolutely valid. (10) It was also submitted that in pursuance of the order Ex. 4 dated 26.3.1992 of the learned Deputy Registrar and the order Ex. 5 dated 28.3.1992 of the learned Election Officer fixing the election programme, the elections have taken place on 7.4.1992 and the proceedings of those elections have been filed as Annexure R-2 in the stay petition. The copy of the detailed judgment dated 12.3.1992 of the learned Additional Registrar has also been filed marked as Annexure-R.3 in the stay petition. According to respondent No. 7, the petitioner has no case and, therefore, his writ petition should be dismissed with costs. (11) A rejoinder to the reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, in which, it has been contended that in accordance with r. 33 (9) (a) and (b) of the Rajasthan Co- operative Societies Rules, 1966 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules), as soon as the members of the Committee have been elected, the outgoing Chairman of the Society can arrange to convene a meeting of the members of the Committee for the purpose of election of the officers and that meeting can be presided over by the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Society, if he is not a candidate for election. According to the petitioner, the meeting of the General Body of the Society was called in pursuance of the mandatory provision of s. 31 (1) of the Act, otherwise the Registrar was obliged to call such a meeting under s. 31 (2) of the Act and therefore, no illegality has been committed in convening the meeting of the General Body of the Society on 23.2.1991 because the petitioner continued to hold the post of Chairman till he hands over the charge. It was further submitted that when these six persons have been expelled from the membership of the Society by the General Body of the Society, they have no right to be elected. (12) The contention of the petitioner is that even if he did not present himself before the learned Deputy Registrar on the appointed date or on a subsequent date, the learned Deputy Registrar was obliged to pass a speaking order under s. 32 (1) of the Act and should have shown either of the three grounds mentioned in s. 32 (1) of the Act for cancellation of the resolution of the General Body of the Society dated 23.2.1991. (13) I have heard Mr. R.C. Gaur, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. S.K. Vyas, the learned Additional Government Advocate and Mr. Ranjeet Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 4 to 9 and have bestowed my most earnest consideration to the rival submissions made at the Bar. (14) The contention of Mr. R.C. Gaur, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that when out of about 1600 members of the Society, 416 members have given in writing to the petitioner, the Chairman of the Society to call the General Body meeting of the Society, the meeting of the Managing Committee of the Society was held on 7.2.1991, in which, it was resolved that the General Body meeting of the Society be convened on 23.2.1991 and in the General Body meeting of the Society held on 23.2.1991, it was resolved that respondents No. 4 to 9 be expelled from the membership of the Society. According to Mr. According to Mr. Gaur, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, when 1/5th members of the Society have given in writing to call a meeting of the General Body of the Society, the petitioner was obliged to convene a meeting of the Managing Committee of the Society to decide about calling of a meeting of the General Body of the Society and if such a meeting was not called by him, the Registrar was obliged to call such a meeting keeping in view the provisions of s. 31 (2) of the Act. As per Mr. Gaur, no illegality has been committed by the petitioner in calling the General Body meeting of the Society. (15) According to Mr. Gaur, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the General Body meeting was attended by 365 members of the Society and therefore, the quorum was complete and it was unanimously resolved that respondents No. 4 to 9 be expelled from the membership of the Society and, therefore, that resolution cannot be rescind and cancelled by the learned Deputy Registrar because as per s. 29 of the Act, in such matters, the final authority vests in the General Body of the Society. (16) S. 29 of the Act provides that the final authority in a co-operative society shall, subject to the provisions of the Act and the Rules, vest in the General Body of the Members. Thus, this authority which vests in the General Body is subject to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. (17) Now, this has to be seen whether the General Body meeting called by the petitioner on 23.2.1991 was at all in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules? Thus, this authority which vests in the General Body is subject to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. (17) Now, this has to be seen whether the General Body meeting called by the petitioner on 23.2.1991 was at all in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules? (18) It has been contended that respondents No.4 to 9 were elected as the members of the Managing Committee on 12/16.1.1991, as the case may be and as per r. 33 (9) (a) and (b) of the Rules, as soon as the members of the Committee have been elected, the outgoing Chairman of the Society shall arrange to convene a meeting of the members of the Committee for the purpose of election of the Officers and the meeting shall be presided over by the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Society, if he is not a candidate for election, or any other member not being a candidate for election chosen by the Committee, or any person authorised by the Registrar for the purpose. The contention of Mr. Gaur is that when the final authority vests in the General Body of the Society as per s. 29 of the Act and when the Chairman of the outgoing Society continues to be the Chairman and he has a right to convene the meeting of the elected members to elect Chairman, Vice -Chairman and other office bearers of the Society as per r. 33 (9) (a) and (b) of the Rules and to preside over such a meeting then any representation submitted to him for calling special meeting of the General Body can be acted upon by him in accordance with the provisions of s. 31 (1) of the Act and any resolution passed by such General Body meeting could not have been rescinded or cancelled by the Deputy Registrar in exercise of his powers under s. 32 (1) of the Act. (19) Although, apparently this argument looks very attractive and weighty but on a closer scrutiny, it has no legs to stand. (19) Although, apparently this argument looks very attractive and weighty but on a closer scrutiny, it has no legs to stand. It is no doubt true that if a presentation is given for convening a special meeting of the General Body of the Society by its l/5th members, the Managing Committee of the Society is obliged to call such meeting as per the provisions of s. 31 (1) of the Act but in this case, the requisition/representation in writing by l/5th members of the Society was given after 16.1.1991 and, therefore, no Managing Committee was in existence after 16.1.1991 because before that elections to the Managing Committee of the Society have already taken place and new members of the Managing Committee have already been elected and, therefore, the old Managing Committee could not hold its meeting on 7.2.1991 to decide about calling the General Body meeting of the Society on 23.2.1991. Such a representation/requisition could have been considered by the newly elected members of the Managing Committee of the Society and not by the old members because the old members of the Managing Committee had become functus officio and the Chairman also did not remain as Chairman of the Society after the elections to the new Managing Committee have taken place. Thus, the argument of Mr. R.C. Gaur, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that such a power vests in the Chairman cannot be countenanced. That argument is totally based on r. 33 (9) (a) and (b) of the Rules. (20) R. 33 (9) of the Rules provides that the election of the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer or any other Office bearer of Societies by whatever name he is designated belonging to classes not specified in sub-rr. (1) and (23) of r. 32 shall be conducted in accordance with clauses (a) and (b) of r. 33 (9) of the Rules; Thus, r. 33 (9) of the Rules only applies to the election of Chairman, Vice Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer or any other Office bearer of the Societies by whatever name he is designated belonging to classes not specified in sub-rr. (1) and (23) of r. 32 of the Rules. (1) and (23) of r. 32 of the Rules. Sub r.(l) of r. 32 relates to the election of the members of the Committee of the Apex Societies , Central Societies, Agricultural Marketing Societies, Primary Land Development Banks, Consumers Cooperative Societies and Housing Co-operative Societies, all other Societies not enumerated above the share capital of which exceeds Rs. 1 lakh and any other Society or class of Societies which may be notified by the Registrar, from time to time in this behalf. Sub-r. (23) of r. 32 of the Rules provides that the election of the members of the Committee of Primary Agricultural Credit Societies shall be conducted by an Election Officer appointed by the Registrar in such manner as has been provided in the bye-laws of such Society under reference subject to such further instructions as the Registrar may issue in this behalf from time to time. In this case, there is no doubt that Panchu Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society and such Primary Agricultural Credit Societies have been exempted from the provisions of r. 33 of the Rules vide Govt. Notification No. F.4 (33) Agri/Gr. IV/Co-op. 76, dated 24.12.1976, which has been published in Rajasthan Gazette Part IV-C (ii), dated 20.1.1977 at page 388 and it has been further directed that the election of Chairman, Vice Chairman or any other Officer by whatever name he designated shall be conducted by an Election Officer appointed by the Registrar in such manner as has been provided in the bye-laws of such society. Thus elections of Chairman, Vice-Chairman or any other Officer by whatever name he is designated of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society have to be conducted by an Election Officer and not by the outgoing Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Society. In this case, as stated above, the members of the Managing Committee were elected on 12/16.1.1991 and, therefore, the old members of the Managing Committee ceased to have any existence and the outgoing Chairman of the Society cannot act as Chairman of the Society. In this case, as stated above, the members of the Managing Committee were elected on 12/16.1.1991 and, therefore, the old members of the Managing Committee ceased to have any existence and the outgoing Chairman of the Society cannot act as Chairman of the Society. He has no legal rights to call a General Body meeting of the Society and, therefore, calling of the meeting of the old Managing Committee on 7.2.1991 and further resolving to convene a meeting of the General Body of the Society on 23.2.1991 on the requisition of l/5th members of the Society, after the elections of new members to the Committee have taken place was totally wrong and illegal and so, the learned Deputy Registrar in exercise of his powers under s. 32 (1) of the Act was perfectly justified in rescinding the resolution passed on 23.2.1991 by the General Body of the Society. (21) I may state here that when the notice for calling the General Body meeting of the Society on 23.2.1991 was issued by the petitioner, the learned Deputy Registrar immediately informed him that such a meeting is illegal and he cannot convene such meeting. If the petitioner felt themself aggrieved of this action of the learned Deputy Registrar, he should have approached the appropriate forum but inspite of the orders of the learned Deputy Registrar, he called the General Body meeting of the Society on 23.2.1991, in which, it was unanimously resolved that respondents No. 4 to 9 who have been elected to the Managing Committee of the Society on 12/16.1.1991 be expelled from the Society. After elections of new members to the Managing Committee, such an action is not within the purview of the General Body of the Society. That action can only be taken under s. 36 of the Act read with r. 38 (1) of the Rules by the Registrar or his nominee and not by the General Body of Society. Only the Chairman or any Officer of a Society can be removed by a resolution of a General Body meeting of the Society as per r. 38 (5) of the Rules and not any member of the Managing/Governing Committee of the Society. Only the Chairman or any Officer of a Society can be removed by a resolution of a General Body meeting of the Society as per r. 38 (5) of the Rules and not any member of the Managing/Governing Committee of the Society. In this view of the matter, I am firmly of the view that calling of the meeting of the old Managing Committee on 7.2.1991 and resolving to convene a meeting of the General Body of the Society on 23.2.1991 on the requisition of l/5th members of the Society, after the elections of new members to the Committee have taken place was patently illegal. Further, the resolution passed on 23.2.1991 by the General Body of the Society that respondents No.4 to 9 be expelled from the membership of the Society is also against the provisions of s. 36 of the Act read with r. 38 (1) of the Rules. (22) Moreover, all General meetings of the Society have to be called by the Secretary of the Society and not by the Chairman as per r. 30 (2) of the Rules. R. 30 (3) provides that unless otherwise provided in these Rules or the bye-laws, a notice of the meeting stating the place, date and hour of the meeting, statement of business to be transacted at it shall be sent to every member seven clear days before the date of the meeting in the manner provided in these Rules or the by-laws. No such notice convening the meeting of the General Body of the Society signed by the Secretary of the Society has been produced. Thus the Chairman has no authority to convene the meeting of the General Body of the Society. (23) R. 30 (5) of the Rules provides that the Secretary or any other Officer convening the meeting shall read out the notice convening the meeting and the agenda for the meeting and then the subjects shall be taken up for consideration in order in which they are mentioned in the agenda unless the members present, with the permission of the Chairman, agree to change the order. Unless otherwise specified in the Act, these rules and bye-laws, the resolutions will be passed by a majority of the members present. It has not been brought on record whether the provisions of r. 30 (5) of the Rules have been complied with or not? Unless otherwise specified in the Act, these rules and bye-laws, the resolutions will be passed by a majority of the members present. It has not been brought on record whether the provisions of r. 30 (5) of the Rules have been complied with or not? (24) S.32(1) of the Act clearly provides that 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 interests of the Society or is in excess of the powers of the Society, the Registrar, after giving the Co-operative Society an opportunity of being heard, may by order in writing rescind the resolution in whole or in part specifying the reasons thereof. In this case, as stated above, the very calling of the meeting of the Managing Committee on 7.2.1991 and further calling of the General Body meeting of the Society were patently wrong, illegal and ab-initio void then the proceedings of such meeting can be rescinded or cancelled because they have no legal sanctity. Be that as it may, the petitioner was informed on 20.2.1991 that he cannot call such a meeting of the General Body of the Society because convening of such a meeting itself was illegal and still that meeting was held in which a resolution was passed that respondents No. 4 to 9 who were elected to the Managing Committee on 12/16.1.1991 be expelled from the membership of the Society. Such a resolution could not have been passed. However, when such a resolution was passed, a notice was issued to the petitioner by the learned Deputy Registrar to show cause as to why such a resolution should not be rescinded? S. 32 (2) of the Act provides that on receipt of an intimation from the Registrar, of his proposal to rescind the resolution under sub-o. (1), the said resolution shall cease to have effect until the Registrar passes final orders in the matter. S. 32 (2) of the Act provides that on receipt of an intimation from the Registrar, of his proposal to rescind the resolution under sub-o. (1), the said resolution shall cease to have effect until the Registrar passes final orders in the matter. Thus, the proposal of learned Deputy Registrar to cancel the convening the meeting of the General Body of the Society on 23.2.1991 remained in force till the resolution passed on 23.2.1991 in the General Body meeting was rescinded and when the learned Deputy Registrar has given notice on 6.3.1991 to the petitioner that the resolution which has been passed by the General Body meeting is illegal and, therefore, why it should not be cancelled then that notice remained in force till the final orders were passed. It is no doubt true that while passing the final orders which were exparte because no objections were filed by the petitioner inspite of giving him several opportunities, the learned Deputy Registrar has not assigned any reasons as to why such a resolution has been rescinded or cancelled. The learned Deputy Registrar should have assigned reasons for rescinding or cancelling the resolution of the General Body of the Society. However, while rescinding or cancelling the resolution, if the learned Deputy Registrar has not assigned reasons that could be ignored because the entire proceedings of the General Body meeting are nonest. Be that as it may, once a notice is issued by the learned Deputy Registrar to the petitioner to show cause as to why the resolution of the General Body meeting of the Society should not be rescinded, that resolution does not remain in operation till the final orders are passed as per s. 32 (2) of the Act. This Court while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2612 of 1991 has only passed an order that till the matter is decided by the learned Deputy Registrar on 25.10.1991 or thereafter, the position as it is existing today shall be maintained. Thereafter, there was no stay order. The order of the learned Deputy Registrar dated 22.1.1992 which to some extent is a non-speaking order merges in the appellate order of the learned Additional Registrar dated 12.3.1992, which is a speaking order. Thus, if there was any infirmity in the order of the learned Deputy Registrar, that stands cured by the order of the learned Additional Registrar. (25). The order of the learned Deputy Registrar dated 22.1.1992 which to some extent is a non-speaking order merges in the appellate order of the learned Additional Registrar dated 12.3.1992, which is a speaking order. Thus, if there was any infirmity in the order of the learned Deputy Registrar, that stands cured by the order of the learned Additional Registrar. (25). In this view of the matter, I feel that the resolution which has been passed on 23.2.1991 in the General Body meeting of the Society has rightly been quashed by the learned Deputy Registrar and the order dated 22.1.1992 passed by the learned Deputy Registrar has rightly been upheld by the learned Deputy Registrar. The powers of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution cannot be exercised to set aside an appropriate order. The order of the learned Deputy Registrar dated 22.1.1992, in the facts and circumstances of this case, in spite of the fact that it is a non-speaking order, is just and proper. The order of the learned Additional Registrar dated 12.3.1992 is very much a speaking order and therefore, they cannot be set aside. (26) It may be stated here that as the persons belonging to the group of the petitioner were not elected to the Managing Committee of the Society, he has malafidely taken upon. himself the powers of the Chairman of the Society and has filed this writ petition to put obstacles and hurdles in the working of the persons who have been elected to the Managing Committee of the Society. (27) In the result, I find no force in this writ petition and, therefore, this writ petition is dismissed with costs. The costs are assessed at Rs. 2000/-. Out of Rs. 2000/- payable by the petitioner, Rs. 1500/- shall be payable to respondents No. 4 to 9 and the remaining Rs. 500/- shall be deposited in the Govt. Treasury in the Govt. account.