JUDGMENT S. N. Phukan, C. J.—By this writ. petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the writ petitioner has assailed the order dated 24-12-1994 passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, vide Annexure P-8. 2. Briefly- stated the facts are as follows;— "The petitioner is a Member of Bhamnoli Educated Unemployed Transport Co-operative Union and he was sent as a delegate from the above Society to participate in the elections of H. P State Co-operative Marketing & Consumers Federation (hereinafter referred to HIMFED). The above election of HIMFED was for Rampur Zone which includes District Kinnaur, Rampur, Kumarsain, Rohroo and Chirgaon Tehsils. The petitioner contested the election for the post of the Director of HIMFED and he was elected. One Jaishi Ram Sharma, Respondent No 3, challenged the election of the petitioner before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Himachal Pradesh, by filing a petition under section 12 v2) (c) of the H P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rule 88 of the Rules 1971 framed under the Act. The petitioner filed the reply before the Registrar and by order dated 9-5-1994, the petition was allowed and the election of the writ petitioner as the Director of HIMFED was set-aside with further direction to conduct fresh election by HIMFED for filling up the post of the Director. This was challenged before the Secretary (Cooperation), who passed the order dated 5-8-1994. The Secretary accepted, prima facie, and came to the preliminary conclusion that the Bhamnoli Cooperative Society was the defaulter and, therefore, the said Co-operative Society was not eligible to continue as a Member of HIMFED under Rule 41 (2) (i) and accordingly, in the interim, directed that till the matter is decided by the Registrar, under Rule 41 (2) (i), the post of the Director held by the present petitioner would remain vacant and thereafter it will be filled up in accordance with the decision of the Registrar. The appellate order is available at Annexure P-5 to the writ petition. However, the Secretary remanded the case to the Registrar for taking action as per provision of Rule 41 (2) (i) and further directed that Bhamnoli Co-operative Society was a necessary party in the proceedings before the Registrar as its right to continue as a Member would be affected. The appellate order is available at Annexure P-5 to the writ petition. However, the Secretary remanded the case to the Registrar for taking action as per provision of Rule 41 (2) (i) and further directed that Bhamnoli Co-operative Society was a necessary party in the proceedings before the Registrar as its right to continue as a Member would be affected. Thereafter, the Registrar passed the impugned order with a direction that the above Co-operative Society be arrayed as Respondent No 4 to the present proceedings". Heard learned Counsel for the parties 3. The first point urged is that the impugned order of the Registrar is illegal, inasmuch as, the said Co-operative Society is not a necessary party. We are unable to accept the contention as the order of the Secretary has not been assailed before us regarding this direction and, therefore, the impugned order of the Registrar has been passed as per the direction of the Secretary and, as such, the Registrar being a Subordinate authority is bound by the direction of the Secretary. 4. Learned Counsel has drawn our attention to Rule 38 (6) of the Rules 197J framed under the Act. According to said sub section any dispute relating to the election to a committee of a member or an officer shall be referred to the Registrar under section 11 of the Act within 30 days from the date of declaration of the result of such election. Clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 72 of the Act provides that any dispute arising in connection with the election of any officer or the Society shall be deemed to be disputes touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society. Sub-section (1) of said section 72, inter alia, provides that such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision and no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceeding in respect of such dispute Therefore, reading section 72 and sub-rule (6) of Rule 38, we hold that the limitation of 30 days is only for referring an election dispute to the Registrar and not regarding impleading necessary parties. 5. 5. Our attention has been drawn to a decision of the apex Court in K. Venkateswara Rao and another v. Bekkam Narasimha Reddi and others, AIR 1969 SC 872, wherein it was held inter alia, that if a necessary party is not joined within limitation of filing petition, the High Court has no power to allow making of such parties to the election petition after the period of limitation. We are of the opinion that this ratio is not applicable to the case in hand, inasmuch us, the election disputes stand on a different footing and it is to be decided in accordance with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, but the present dispute has to be decided in terms of the Act and rules framed there under, 6. For the reasons stated above, adding the Bhamnoli Unemployed Co-operative Transport Society, as a respondent by the impugned order of the Registrar cannot be faulted. 7. Rule 41, clause (jj), inter alia, provides that no person shall be eligible for appointment, or elected as member of the committee of any society, if he is a representative of the defaulter society, From the order of the Registrar, we find that sufficient materials were available with the Registrar including bank records on the basis of which Co operative Society which nominated the petitioner was held to be a defaulting society. But in appeal the Secretary remanded the matter only on the technical point that the said Co-operative Society ought to have been made a party, though the Secretary was, prima facie, satisfied that the said Society was a defaulter. From the order of the Secretary, we find that remark has been made that the letter issued by the H. P. State Co-operative Bank Ltd., regarding the financial position of the Co-operative Society of the petitioner violates the code of confidentiality to be maintained by the Banks, namely, the affairs of their clients The Secretary has further directed the said Bank to examine the matter carefully in the context of Banking ethics and take corrective action. We are unable to accept this part of the remark of the Secretary as in our opinion, for the purpose of deciding this election dispute the Registrar acts as a Court and he has got definite power to ask the Bank as to whether any Co-operative Society is a defaulter in respect of payment of loan Therefore, we expunge the above remark of the Secretary and direct that the Registrar may either act on the certificate issued by the Bank or if necessary summon a responsible officer to prove the certificate and may also issue directions under section 4 of the provisions of the Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891, which certificate shall be, prima facie, evidence of such entry in the Bankers’ book and shall be admitted as evidence of the matters, transactions and accounts. We have also examined the matter whether this Act is applicable in a proceeding of this nature Clause (4) of section 2 of the aforesaid Act defines "legal proceedings" which means—(i) any proceeding or inquiry in which evidence is or may be given, (ii) an arbitration; and (iii) any investigation or inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure or under any other law for the time being in force for the collection of evidence, conducted by a police officer or by any other person (not being a magistrate) authorised in this behalf by a magistrate or by any law for the time being in force. As the present proceeding is being conducted by the Registrar as authorised under the Act, he may invoke the provisions of the Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891. 8. For the reasons stated above, the present petition has no merit and it is dismissed. No costs. 9. Considering the fact that this is an election matter, we direct the Registrar that the entire proceedings shall be disposed of within one month from the date of appearance of the parties: We further direct the petitioner as well as the respondents to appear before the Registrar on 16th October, 1995. If any appeal is filed by any aggrieved party before the Secretary (Cooperation), such appeal shall also be disposed of within one month from the date of service of notices on the parties Petition dismissed.