GULAB C. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner Bank had advanced loan to the respondent no. 2 for purchase of a tractor. It appears that the said respondent defaulted in making payment of the said loan and, therefore, the petitioner Bank applied to the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies under section 14 of M P. Bhumi Vikas Adhiniyam, 1966 to sell the tractor, in order to recover the loan. On the said application being filed, the respondent Asstt. Registrar appointed one Shri S K Rajput as Sales Officer. Shri rajput started proceedings for sale of the tractor but before the actual auction sale could take place, he forwarded the case to one Shri S. R. Ahmed on 17-31-982 for further proceedings. Shri Ahmed thereafter sold the tractor. The said sale was challenged before the Joint Registrar by filing an application by Respondent no. 2. The Joint Registrar, by his order dated 21-3-1983 held that the sale had not been done in accordance with law. He, therefore, declared the said sale illegal and directed the petitioners to proceed further in the matter, in accordance with Jaw. The legal validity of the said order was challenged by the petitioner no. 2 by filing a revision before the respondent Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue, by its order dated 3. 7. 1984 (Annexure-C) affirmed the finding that the sale was illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the aforesaid order and challenge legal validity of the same by filing this writ petition under Article-226 of the Constitution. ( 2 ) SECTION-28 of the aforesaid Adhiniyam empowers the Registrar to appoint Sales Officer for pu rposes of recovery of amount due to a Bank by selling the property of the defaulter The Registrar, under the Act, means either the Registrar of the Co-operative Society or the person appointed as such under section-3 of the Act By a notification published in 1968 MP law Times (Part-Il) Page-429, Asstt Registrar and Dy Registrar have been given the powers of Registrar for purposes of the Adhiniyam. Under the circumstances, the Assistant Registrar could have appointed a Sales Officer for purposes of this Act. The fact clearly indicates that the Assistant Registrar has appointed Shri S. K Rajput as Sales Officer for the purpose. Under the circumstances, the Assistant Registrar could have appointed a Sales Officer for purposes of this Act. The fact clearly indicates that the Assistant Registrar has appointed Shri S. K Rajput as Sales Officer for the purpose. In view of this appointment only Shri S. K. Rajput was entitled to act as the sales Officer and sell the tractor in question It appears that Shri Rajput started proceedings, but forwarded the case to the Branch Manager, Shri ahmed on 17. 3 1982 for conducting actual sale, etc. Thereafter, Shri ahmed had conducted the actual sale. There is no order of appointment of shri Ahmed as Sales Officer. Shri Rajput, who was appointed by the Registrar as Sales Officer, had no authority to appoint some one else in bis place. Under the circumstances, appointment of Shri S R. Ahmed for the purpose of holding Sale proceedings was, prima facie, illegal. In this view of the matter, the sale in question must be held to be illegal and wholly unauthorised, This, in the opinion of this Court, is sufficient to uphold the legal validity of impugoed-order. It may, however, be mentioned in passing, that the Board of Revenue had also found several other discrepancies in the matter, which are of substance and affect legal validity of the sale. This Court would, however, not pass any final judgment on the same. ( 3 ) IN view of the discussion aforesaid, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 250/ -. Petition dismissed .