OM PRAKASH, J. ( 1 ) DISTRICT Co-operative Federation Ltd. , Allahabad, respondent No. 3, is a Society, registered under the Co-operative Societies act, 1965 (briefly,the Act. 1965) Respondent No. 2 is a Multi State Co-operative society governed by the Multi State Co-operaties Act, 1984. (for short, the Act 1984 ). The petitioner was declared elected on 29-9-1992 as member of the Committee of Management of the Society, respondent No. 3, and be was elected as delegate of the Society, respondent No. 3, to represent the Society, respondent No, 3, in the representative General Body of respondent no. 2 as delegate. ( 2 ) BY resolution dated 12-1-1993 (Annexme 4 to the writ petition), the petitioner was informed that in his place respondent No. 4 would be a delegate and that the latter would represent the Society, respondent No. 3, in the repsesentative General Body of respondent No. 2. ( 3 ) THE petitioner, thererore, seeks quashing of the aforesaid resolution. ( 4 ) THE short question for considering is whether the petitioner, who is only a member of the Committee of Management of the Society, respondent no. 3 and not the Chairman thereof is entitled to represent in the representative general Body of respondent No 2. ( 5 ) SRI Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the society, respondent No, 3, is governed by the Act, 1965 and that once the petitioner was elected as a delegate of the said society to represent the representative General Body of respondent No 2, he could not have been replaced by respondent No. 4 by virtue of the provisions of the Act. 1984. In short, his submission is that the affairs of the Society governed by the Act, 1965, cannot be controlled and regulated by the provisions of the Act, 1984. ( 6 ) THE preamble of the Act, 1965, indicates that the said Act was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to co-operative societies in Uttar Paadesh. On the other hi nd, the Act of i 984 was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to co-operative societies not confined to one State and serving the interest of members in more than one State. On the other hi nd, the Act of i 984 was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to co-operative societies not confined to one State and serving the interest of members in more than one State. It is manifest from the preamble of these two enactments that whereas the former governs the co-operative society which is confined to one State, the latter governs co-operative societies whose objects are not confined to one State only and which serve the interest of members in more than one State. Thus, these two statutes operate in different areas Whereas the society, respondent no. 3, is confined to one State, the Multi State Co-operative Societies governed by the Act. i984 govern tiie Society (s) which serve the interest of members in more than on State. The Act of 1965 is a State Act and the Act of 1984 is 8 Central Statute. ( 7 ) THE society, respondent No. 3, being a member of respondent No. 2, a Multi State Co-operative Sociely ie entitled to send a delegate to represent in the representative General Body of respondent No. 2. The question is who can represent the Society, respondent No 3, in the representative general Body of respondent No. 2 a Multi State Co-operative Society The submission of Sri Kumar is that it is for the member society to decide as to who will represent it in the General Body of the Multi State Co-operative society, of which the former is a member, and that question cannot be regulated by the Central Act of 1984, which governs the Multi State Cooperative societies. ( 8 ) IF Parliament is empowered to enact the Act of 1984 then in view of sub-section (3) of Section 29 of the Act. 1984. only the Chairman of the member-society can represent the representative General Body of the Multi state Co-operative Societies. Sub-section (i) of Section 29 falling in chapter iv of the Act, 1984, is as under :" (I) The general body of a Multi State Co-operative Society shall constest of all the members of such Society. 1984. only the Chairman of the member-society can represent the representative General Body of the Multi state Co-operative Societies. Sub-section (i) of Section 29 falling in chapter iv of the Act, 1984, is as under :" (I) The general body of a Multi State Co-operative Society shall constest of all the members of such Society. " sub-section (3) of Section 29 runs thus : " (3) Where in any meeting the general body or the Board of a Multi state Co-operative Society, a Co-operaiive Society or another multi Siate Co-operative Sociely is to be represented, such Co-operative society or other Multi State Co-operative Society shall be represented in such meeting only through the Chairman or the chief Executive of such Co-operative Society or other Multi state Co-operative Society, as the case may be and where there is no Board of such Co-operative Society, or other Multi State co-operative Society, for whatever reasons, through the Administrator, by whatever name called, of such Co-operative Society or other Multi State Co-operative Society. " From Sub-section (3 ). it is clear that only the Chairman of the Committee of Management of a member co-operative society is entitled to represent his society in the representive General Body of the Multi State co-operative Society. " ( 9 ) ENTRY 32, List II, Seventh Schedule to the Constitution is reproduced below :"in corporation, regulation and winding up of corporation, other than those specified in List I, and universities, unincorporated trading, literary, scientific, religious and other societies and associations, co-operative societies. "entry 43, List I, Seventh Schedule to the Constitution is as follows :"incorporation, regulation and winding up of trading corporations, including banking, insurance and financial corporation but not including co-operetive societies. " ( 10 ) ADVERTING to these Entries, Sri Kumar submits that the State legislature alone is competent to legislate in regard to co-operative societies and not the Parliament. We agree with this submission, but then the question is whether the State Legislature is entitled to legislate about a Multi state Co-operative Society. A co-operative society confined to a State comes within the legislative competence of the State Legislature under Entry 32, List 11. Seventh Schedule, but not and Multi State Co-operative Society, and Sri kumar has failed to convince us that Entry 32, List II, Seventh Schedule also governs a Multi State Society. A co-operative society confined to a State comes within the legislative competence of the State Legislature under Entry 32, List 11. Seventh Schedule, but not and Multi State Co-operative Society, and Sri kumar has failed to convince us that Entry 32, List II, Seventh Schedule also governs a Multi State Society. There is no specific entry either in List II or list I or List III of Seventh Schedule relating to a Multi State Society, Article 246 confers power on the State Legislature to legislate on the topics falling in list 11 and List III. Similarly, the Parliament is competent to legislate on the topics falling in List I ard List 111. Seventh schedule to the Constitution. Entry 32, List II not relating to a Multi State Society, the State Legislature will have r. o legislative competency to legislate in that regard. It is not argued by Sri Kumar that there is no difference between a co- operative simplicitor society and a Multi State Co-operative Society, Act it is clear from the nomenclature itself, a Multi State Co-operative Society refers to a society whose objects are not confined to one State alone, with serve the interest of the members in more than one State The topic of co-operative societies falling in Entry 32, T ist II. Seventh Schedule, in our view, does not refer to a Multi State Co-opertive Society, but to a co-operative society who objects are confined to one State alone and. therefore, a Multi State Co-operative is not within the legislative competence of the State legislature by virtue of Entry 12, List II, Seventh Schedule, Similarly the Parliment does not acquire legislative competency in regard to a Multi State Co-operative society by virtue of the entries in List I, because none of such entries specfic cally relate to that. ( 11 ) THEN the question is how the Parliament assumed the power to legislate regarding a Multi State Co-operative Society. Here comes into play the Article 241 of the Constitution which beers the heading "residuary powers of legislation". Clause (1) of Article 241 provided that Parliament has exclusive power to make any law with respect to any matter not enumerated in the concurrent List or State List. Here comes into play the Article 241 of the Constitution which beers the heading "residuary powers of legislation". Clause (1) of Article 241 provided that Parliament has exclusive power to make any law with respect to any matter not enumerated in the concurrent List or State List. Multi State Co-operative Society rot being a legislative topic either under List II or List III Seventh Schedule becomes a residuary topic and herefore, the Parliament under clause (1) of article, 284 of the Constitution has exclusive power to make any law with respect to that and the power of the Parliament to legislate on the topic of multi Co-operative Society can be traced to residuary power of Article 248 of the Constitution. ( 12 ) IT is, therefore, held that the Parliament exercised legislative power under Article 248 (1) in regard to Multi State Co-operative Societies Therefore the Act of 1984 is within the legislative competence of the Parliament, that being so, sub-section (3) of Section 29 of the Act, 1984, will operate with full force and by virtue of that, only the Chairman of the Committee of Management of a co-operative society, whose objects are confind to a state alone, can respreset in the representative General Body of the Multi state Co-operative Society. ( 13 ) ADMITTEDLY, respondent No. 4 was elected Chairman of the society, respondent No, 3, on 29-9-1992. It is averred by respondents in their counter-affidavit that the communication dated October 19, 1992 (Annexure "2" to the writ petition) was wrongly sent to the petitioner and that mistake occurred, because the petitioner was tae Chairman before the election took place on 29-9-1992, and that since it came to the notice of respondent No. 2 that in the election held on 29-9-1992 not the petitioner but respondent No 4 became the Chairman of the society respondent No. 3, the mistake was corrected and a resolution was passed in the meeting dated 12-1-1993 to replace the petitioner by respondent no. 4 as delegate of the society, respondent No. 3. ( 14 ) WE do not see any legal error in the impugned resolution dated 12-1-1993 (Annexure "4" to the writ petition) replacing the petitioner by respondent No. 4 as delegate of the co-operative society, respondent No 3, to represent in the representative General Body of the Multi State Co-operative society respondent No. 2. ( 14 ) WE do not see any legal error in the impugned resolution dated 12-1-1993 (Annexure "4" to the writ petition) replacing the petitioner by respondent No. 4 as delegate of the co-operative society, respondent No 3, to represent in the representative General Body of the Multi State Co-operative society respondent No. 2. ( 15 ) FOR the reasons, the petition falls and is dismissed. The interim order dated 1-4-1993 is vacated. s .