S. B. MAJUMDAR, J. ( 1 ) THERE is no substance in this writ appeal. The appellant who was respondent-5 in the writ petition was inducted as President of the Managing 'committee of a reconstituted Co-operative Society on amalgamation of two societies. He was inducted pursuant to the order dated 21-4-1994 Anaexure-E to the writ petition. That order is passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Belgaum Sub-Division, belgaum. It appears to have been passed in purported exercise of powers under Section 14-A of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act' ). This order was challenged in writ petition by respondent-1- co-operative Society. The challenge was mounted on various grounds. One contention was that the managing committee's term was for three years, and it was constituted on 30th March 1991. By virtue of an order issued under Section 14-A of the Act, the erstwhile Societies were required to be amalgamated. The said provision reads as under :"14-A. Power to direct amalgamation, division and recogmzation public interest- (l) Notwithstanding anything contained io this act or the rules made thereunder any the bye laws of the co- operative Societies concerned, where the Registrar is satisfied that it is essential in public interett of co-operative movement or for the purpose of securing the proper management of any co- operative society that any two or more co-operative societies should be amalgamated to form a single co-operative society should be divided or any co-operative society should be recogni- sed, then the Registrar shall order the amalgamation, division or recognition of such co-operative Societies. "as per sub-section (-) of Section 14-A of the Act, the order passed under Section 14-A of the Act could provide amongst others, the composi- tion, strength, names and the terms of office of the members (including the chairman) of the first committee. In exercise of that power the Joint registrar had constituted the committee of members and also nominated president with effect from 30-3-1991 and the term of the said managing committee including the Chairman was three years as per clause (ii) of the order Annexure-A. This order is not in challenge. But pursuant to that order the term of the office of the managing committee including all its members got exhausted on 30-3-1994. But pursuant to that order the term of the office of the managing committee including all its members got exhausted on 30-3-1994. Thereafter it appears that the Joint registrar of Co-operative Societies purporting to exercise powers under section 14-A of the Act passed the'impugned order by which he continued all seven members of the managing committee but changed the head, namely, the President. The existing President was replaced by the appllant. ( 2 ) IT was contended that such an order is not contemplated by Section 14-A at all. It was also submitted that even assuming that the Joint Regis- trar could have exercised that power even after the tenure of the first com- mittee constituted by him under Section 14-A of the Act was over, till the fresh elections of the managing committee were held by the members of the newly formed amalgamated co-operative society, the old managing committee could legally continue, that the impugned order was passed by the Joint registrar not at his own instance but only at the behest of one local M. L. A. Mr. K. G. Koliwad as mentioned in the order itself and therefore, it is not the order passed by the Joint Registrar in exercise of his own powers and so it shows complete non-application of mind and is passed for extraneous reasons not contemplated by Section 14-A of the Act. Both these conten- tions were accepted by the learned Single Judge and the appointment of appellant as new President of this managing committee by the notification dated 21-4-1994 issued by the Joint Registrar of Co-operatiee Societies, second respondent in the writ petition was set aside. ( 3 ) THE appellant who naturally got aggrieved by the said order has contended in this appeal that the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies in exercise of his powers under Section 14-A of the Act, could cut short the tenure of the Chairman of the managing committee constituted by him initially. This contention has to be stated to be rejected. As noted earlier when two societies were amalgamated and a new amalgamated society i. e. , present respondent-1 came into existence under Section 14-A (2) of the Act, the Joint Registrar nominated the members of the first managing committee including the Chairman. This contention has to be stated to be rejected. As noted earlier when two societies were amalgamated and a new amalgamated society i. e. , present respondent-1 came into existence under Section 14-A (2) of the Act, the Joint Registrar nominated the members of the first managing committee including the Chairman. That was already done by the order dated 26-3-1991 Annexurc-A to the writ petition, Clause (11) of that order lays down that the term of office of the. members of the said committee shall be three years but the Joint registrar of Co-operative Societies having jurisdiction may at anytime, limit the term of any member (including the Chairmaa) to a shorter period and nominate another person in his place. We fai! to appreciate how this clause can apply on the facts of this case. As noted earlier tlte tenure of the first managing committee constituted under Section 14- A. of the Act was three years from 30-3-1991 and it ended on 30-3-1994- Along with it the full term of the Chairman was also over. Thereafter there remained no occassion for cutting short the tenure of any one for any period anterior to 30-3-1994. The impugned order is dated 21-44994. By that order the existing Chairman was sought to be replaced by the appellant. For exercising that power, clanse (11) was out of picture. It must therefore be held that when this order was passed the Joint Registrar was not clothed with any futther power under Section 14ra of the Act, to monitor the constitution or re-constitution or reshuffing of the first manag- ing Committee which could have been constituted by him in exercise of powers under Section 14-A (ii) of the Act. That power got exhausted the moment the first committee was consti- tuted and its term expired by efflux of time. Thereafter it was for the mem- bers of the society in the annual general body meeting to elect and, reconsti- tue the Managing Committee. It would be the second managing committee wojcand, ij/ould be consisting of elected members. That has never hap- pened. We are told that this is because there is, ban imposed by the State government for holding any elections to managing committee of societies upto 31-12-1994. Be that as it may. It would be the second managing committee wojcand, ij/ould be consisting of elected members. That has never hap- pened. We are told that this is because there is, ban imposed by the State government for holding any elections to managing committee of societies upto 31-12-1994. Be that as it may. There is no power under Section 14-A (2) of the Act, to constitute a second managing Committee after the first managing committee's term got exhausted on expiry of the period of three years. It may be noted that in such an eventually under Rule 13 sub-rule (3) of the Rules, the election of the members of the committee has to be held an or before the date specified in the bye-laws on the expiry of the term of the office of the members. There is a proviso to Rule 13 which provides that the, committee whose term of office in deemed to so expire, shall coptinue in office till the new committee elected and shall thereafter hand over charge of the office to the new committee. ( 4 ) THUS, after the expiry of the first managing committee on 30--3-1224 the same hold committee along wit h its Chairman could have continued till the newly elected committee displaced the entire committee including the office bearers and the Chairman. But that eventually has still not happened. . Under these circumstances because of the thrust of the provisions of Rule 13 (3) proviso of the Rules, the old Committee and the Chairman were entitled to continue in office till the aforesaid eventually happened. In the mean- time the Joint Registrar could not have interposed and cut short the effect of statutory provisions at a stage when Section 14-A (2) of the Act, was not available to him. Consequently, the decision of the learned Single Judge rendered in this connection is absolutely unassailable and cannot be found fault with. In the mean- time the Joint Registrar could not have interposed and cut short the effect of statutory provisions at a stage when Section 14-A (2) of the Act, was not available to him. Consequently, the decision of the learned Single Judge rendered in this connection is absolutely unassailable and cannot be found fault with. ( 5 ) BUT, there is a second infirmity in the impugned order (Annexure-E) which has also rightly been pointed and highlited by the learned Single Judge the order at Annexure-A even assuming could have been passed by the joint Registrar in re-exercise of powers under Section 14-A of the Act and on a further assumption as if be was freshly appointing the committee once again under that provision, is in substance not passed in such exercise of power under Section 14-A. Such a power could have been exercised under section 14-A Aat only if the Registrar is satisfied that it is essential in public interest or in the interest of co-operative movement or for the purpose of securing the proper management of any co-operative society to pass such an order. None of these three eventualities have happened for displacing the chairman of the first committee, which has continued on account of the thrust of the above statutory Rule 13. The impugned order makes a very interesting reading. It is therefore required to be noted in extenso. It reads:"preamble the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Sacieties of Dharwad, as per the order made at reference No. 1, has re-constituted the members of the kajjari Vyavasaya Seva Sangha Ltd. , Tq. Ranebennur by nominating 11 members. Now the Special Officer, Co-operative Department Bangalore, vide as per the letter referred to at Reference No. 2, has directed to issue an order of nominations as per the request made by Sri K. G. Koliwad, MLA. The order portion says that in view of the Preamble, the Joint Registrar of co-operative Societies, Belgaum, while exercising power under Section 14-E of the bye-laws has modified the order and has nomination the following members. It is clear therefore, that the request made by Sri K. G. Koliwad, mla, which was brought to the notice of the Joint Registrar via Special officer, Co-operative Department, Bangalore, has been the sole basis for the exercise of power by the Joint Registrar, and that only has resulted in the impugned order. It is clear therefore, that the request made by Sri K. G. Koliwad, mla, which was brought to the notice of the Joint Registrar via Special officer, Co-operative Department, Bangalore, has been the sole basis for the exercise of power by the Joint Registrar, and that only has resulted in the impugned order. " ( 6 ) THE Joint Registrar, nowhere says that he himself is satisfied that there is need to exercise that power and so replace the President, even assum- ing that he has such power under Section 14-A of the Act. Therefore, in substance this is an order passed on the satisfaction on the MLA and not on the satisfaction of the Joint Registrar who is a statutory authority. By any standards, such an exercise, which is totally arbitrary and dehors the provisions of law, cannot be sustained. ( 7 ) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that MLA is not a party to this proceeding. May be so and even assuming that the mal bona fide might have made such a recommendation, such a recommen- dation should not have been made the sole basis of the order which has to be passed as per the guideline Section 14-A of the Act and not dehors them. Therefore, the order Annexure-E is also ultra vires the provisions af Section 14-A of the Act, even assuming that Section 14-A of the Act applies to the present case. It was passed for extraneous reasons totally uncalled for and unsustainable in law. When we have, assumed that the MLA, had not recommended with any mala fide motive, it is not necessary to joint MLA, as party-respondent. Question is whether the exercise of power by the Joint registrar solely on account of such request and not independently being satisfied on his own about the requirement for passing such an order under section I4-A of the Act can at all he sustained. For deciding this question presence of MLA is not necessary. ( 8 ) IT was then lastly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the writ petition was not maintainable by the Co-operative Society as no such resolution was passed to file such writ petition Nothing was pointed out on this aspect before the learned single Judge. For deciding this question presence of MLA is not necessary. ( 8 ) IT was then lastly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the writ petition was not maintainable by the Co-operative Society as no such resolution was passed to file such writ petition Nothing was pointed out on this aspect before the learned single Judge. Under the circumstances, it is not open to the appellant to contend for the first time in appeal by raising such a new question of fact. ( 9 ) IT was then submitted that though the writ petition was filed by the society, the learned Single Judge has proceeded on the basis as if the existing President who is said to be displaced by the appellant had filed the petition. To say the least this argument cannot be countenanced. When the Society has filed the petition challenging the replacement of its president by appellant who was respondent-5 in the petition and when all relevant facts are pointed before the learned Judge it could not be said that the challenge was mis-placed or unauthorised. It has to be kept in view that appointment to a public office purporting to be made in exercise of statutory power is brought in challenge. It could have been brought in challenge by any one seeking a writ of quo warranto. If the Society itself has felt aggrie- ved and has filed writ petition it cannot be said that the petition was not maintainable by the Society. For these reasons, there is no substance in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. ( 10 ) AFTER the Judgment was dictated, before it could be signed, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he was instructed not to press this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal will stand dismissed as not pressed. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .