G. C. BHARUKA, J. ( 1 ) THE present writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the order dated 6-2-1995 (Annexure-C) passed by the respondent- joint Director of Co-operative Societies, by which he has rejected the prayer of the petitioner seeking permission to be represented by an advocate in the proceedings drawn against him under Section 126-A of the Karnataka cooperative Societies Act, 1959 (the Act, for short ). ( 2 ) THE relevant facts as set out in the writ petition may be stated in short Petitioner is the elected chairman of the respondent Co-operative society. He was so elected as Chairman on 27-5-1994. It appears that pursuant to certain complaints filed against the Petitioner, the first respondent initiated a proceeding against him for his removal and disqualification as a member of the Committee of Co-operative society under Section 126-A of the Act and a notice to that effect containing charges was served upon him. Consequent upon service of notice, petitioner filed an application dated 19-12-1994 (Annexure-B) seeking permission of the first respondent for engaging a lawyer to represent him during the proceedings ; and he also asked for supply of adverse materials which have formed the basis of the charges. The first respondent though supplied the copies of the complaint and other materials sought for, but turned down the request for engagement of a lawyer on the ground that the same may cause unnecessary delay in completion of the proceedings, by his order at Annexure-C. ( 3 ) SECTION 126-A of ths Act reads as under :"126-A. Removal and Disqualification of a member of a committee. (1) If any member of a Committee of a co-operative society during the term of his office, (a) becomes subject to any disqualification specified in Section 29-C ; or (b) has acted or has been acting fraudulently or with gross negligence or in contravention of the provisions of this Act, the rules or the bye-laws of the co-operative society or without the sanction of the committee of the co-operative society where such sanction is necessary or contrary to any resolution of co-operative society or its committee or in any way prejudicial to the interest of the co-operative society ; or (c) has acted or has been acting persistently against the directions or orders issued under the Act or the rules made thereunder ; or (d) is not discharging his duties satisfactorily, the Registrar may, either on a report made to him or otherwise, by order, remove such member and in cases falling under clauses (b), (c) and (d) disqualify aim from serving on the committee of the co-operative society for such period, not exceeding three years, as he may specify : provided that no such order shall be made accept after giving such member an opportunity of making representation. (2) A copy of the order made under sub-section (1) shall be communicated to the member and the co-operative society concerned. " ( 4 ) THOUGH Section 117 (2) of the Act read with Rule 53 of the karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 provides that in a proceeding pertaining to a dispute under Section 70 of the Act or in appeals before the registrar or the State Government, a legal practitioner shall not be entitled to appear to represent any party except on a permission granted by the adjudicating or appellate authority in this regard ; no such disability or dis-entitlement has been statutorily provided in relation to disqualification proceedings under Section 126-A of the Act. ( 5 ) THE question is whether even in absence of any express or implied prohibition in this regard, can a statutory authority decline the request of the person, sought to be proceeded with, of availing services of a lawyer. ( 5 ) THE question is whether even in absence of any express or implied prohibition in this regard, can a statutory authority decline the request of the person, sought to be proceeded with, of availing services of a lawyer. ( 6 ) IT cannot be disputed that the disqualification proceedings as in the present case are positive in nature and will have civil consequences on the right of a person to serve on the committee of a co-operative society or of holding any office in a co-operative society. The charges if held to be proved will also have bearing on his public life, inasmuch as those may carry reflections of his character. ( 7 ) CONSIDERING the said facts and without entering into the question as to whether in a proceeding like the one under Section 126-A of the Act, an advocate, as a matter of right can seek appearance representing a party, or, another any delinquent member can assert the same as of right, in my opinion, the Registrar can be well advised to accede to such payers considering the nature of the proceedings and in compliance with the requirement of natural justice. ( 8 ) IN J. K. Aggarwal v. Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited, AIR 1991 SC 1221 , at para-3, it has been held by the Supreme Court thus :"the right of representation by a lawyer may not in all cases be held to be a art of natural justice. No general principle valid in all cases can be enunciated. In non-statutory domestic tribunels, Lord Denning in the Court of Appeal in England favoured such a right where a serious charge had been made which affected the livelinood or the right of a person to pursue , an avocation and observed : "i should have though, therefore, that when a man's reputation or livelihood is at stake, he not only has a right to speak by his own mouth, he has also a right to speak by counsel or solicitor. "again in Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar, AIR 1983 SC 109 , it has been held". . . . . . . . . "again in Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar, AIR 1983 SC 109 , it has been held". . . . . . . . . IN our view we have reached a stage in our onward march to fair play in action that where in an enquiry before a demostic tribunal the delinquent officer is pitted against a legally trained mind, if he seeks permission to appear through a legal practitioner the refusal to grant this request would amount to denial of a reasonable request to defend himself and the essential principles of natural justice would be violated. . . . . . . . . " ( 9 ) IN the present case, the only reason which has been given by the respondent Joint Registrar for refusing the prayer for engaging the lawyer is that such grant of permission may cause unnecessary delay in completion of the proceedings. In my opinion, the reeson so set out cannot be said to be germane to the proper exercise of the discretion. The delay likely to be caused in completion of the proceedings can be easily avoided by the adjudicating authority by refusing unnecessary adjournments and by insisting on proceedings to be conducted with promptness. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY the impugned order Annexure-C is quashed, Respondent no. 1 will permit the petitioner for being represented through an advocate. But granting such liberty will not give a licence to the petitioner to protract the proceedings. He can file a representation against the notice within the time allowed and produce such materials in rebuttal of the charges framed against him, as may be permissible, and have his arguments addressed through his advocate on the date fixed for hearing Respondent authority will be at liberty to refuse the prayer for any adjournment which he thinks unreasonable. ( 11 ) WITH the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above, --- *** --- .