Judgment :- A.S. Venkatachala Moorthy, J. The unsuccessful petitioner in the Original Petition is the appellant herein. The writ appeal has been filed against the judgment in O.P. No. 14435 of 1997 dismissing the Original Petition filed by the appellant/ petitioner praying the Court to quash the order made in Ext. P3 dated 4.6.1997 as illegal and for a declaration that the Quilon Processing and Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd., Kadappakada, Kollam is entitled to fill up the retirement vacancies. 2. It is necessary for the proper adjudication of the matter that the case of the respective parties are set out in detail. 3. In the Original Petition dated 16th August, 1997 the Quilon Processing and Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd., Kadappakada, representing by the President N. Gouthaman has stated that the society markets cement directly, supplied by companies like Malabar Cements Ltd. and Ramco and that apart the State Marketing Federation supplies different varieties of manure for mixing and distribution to various primary Cooperative Societies in Kollam, Thiruvananthapuram and Alappuzha Districts. According to the petitioner, after getting the supply of manure from Kerala State Marketing Federation, the same are mixed properly and distributed to the primary co-operative societies depending upon the requirement. The society get 23% margin in this activity. The further case set out in the petition is that the society is managed by 11 elected board of directors and that the society had a secretary, clerk and attender-cum¬watchman. While so, the Secretary retired on 30.4.1997 and the attender-cum-watchman retired on 31.5.1997. For the purpose of filling the said posts the society issued a proper notification as required under the relevant rules and bye-laws and that in response to the same the society received 26 valid applications for the post of secretary and 5 valid applications for the post of attender. The society was thereafter taking steps in the process of selection by conducting written test, interview, etc. as per the instructions contained in Circular No. 18/91 dated 7.6.1991 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. In such as the posts sought to be filled up are not new posts, no prior permission of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is required. However, according to the petitioner, a communication, namely Ext. as per the instructions contained in Circular No. 18/91 dated 7.6.1991 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. In such as the posts sought to be filled up are not new posts, no prior permission of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is required. However, according to the petitioner, a communication, namely Ext. P3 dated 4.6.1997 was received by the society wherein the Joint Registrar, Kollam has stated that after 1992 the society is not functioning in accordance with the bye-laws and that the appointment be stayed for the time being since it is not beneficial to the society and that the present clerk in the society may be given the charge of secretary and that the appointment can be considered later after re-assessment of the financial conditions of the society. It is specifically contended in the Original Petition that the society was not given a copy of the report dated 23.5.1997 and That the present managing committee took charge only on 7.8.1996 from the Administrator who earlier took charge in 1988, whereas Ext. P3 mentions after 1992 the society is not functioning as per the bye-laws. It is specifically mentioned that after the present managing committee took charge the society continue to generate profits and that further the order Ext. P3 would in the facts and circumstances of the case amount to interference by the Registrar in the day-to-day affairs of the society for which he has no power or authority under the Act. A detailed representation dated 8.7.1997 was sent by the society to the Joint Registrar, Kollam to reconsider the Ext. P3 decision, which has been marked as Ext. P4. However, the said Joint Registrar by communication dated 31.7.1997 marked as Ext. P5 has directed the society to continue to function, with a further direction that the present clerk in employment can also look after the work of secretary and that as and when the financial situation of the society improves permission for appointment of secretary can be considered. P4. However, the said Joint Registrar by communication dated 31.7.1997 marked as Ext. P5 has directed the society to continue to function, with a further direction that the present clerk in employment can also look after the work of secretary and that as and when the financial situation of the society improves permission for appointment of secretary can be considered. In brief, the case of the appellant/ petitioner is that the appointments which are sought to be made against sanctioned posts are nothing but the society's day to day administration and in the absence of allegation of any illegality or irregularity in the process of appointment which will cause prejudice to the society, the Joint Registrar, Kollam has no power or authority to pass the impugned orders under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as Act). 4. The learned Single Judge who heard and disposed of the Original Petition by judgment dated 19th August 1997 on a consideration of the entire matter took the view that this court cannot interfere with Exts. P3 and P5 orders and consequently dismissed the same with an observation that it is open to the petitioner to approach any other authorities under the Co-operative Societies Act and Rules, if the law so permits. 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment the appellant has filed this appeal and the same was admitted. At the appellate stage the first respondent filed a counter affidavit refuting the various allegations in the petition. According to the first respondent he has power to pass the impugned orders by virtue of S.66(1)(a) of the Act. In the said counter affidavit it has been admitted that there had been a permanent secretary for over 20 years till 30.4.1997, the date on which he retired. But however, in view of the financial condition of the society it would not be in the interest of the society to make fresh appointment to fill up the existing vacancies and that the work can be looked after by the clerk of the society. It is further stated therein that the request of the society will be considered when the financial position improves. In the said counter affidavit the Registrar has also given the details of loans taken by the society from the Government as well as the West Quilon Service Co-operative Bank., This counter affidavit came to be filed on 7th November 1997. 6. In the said counter affidavit the Registrar has also given the details of loans taken by the society from the Government as well as the West Quilon Service Co-operative Bank., This counter affidavit came to be filed on 7th November 1997. 6. Thereafter a reply affidavit was filed by the appellant on 10th November, 1997 wherein the appellant has stated apart from what is already stated in the O.P. that the authorities have acted with malafide intention for political reasons, it is also mentioned that the society has not taken any loan after 1990 and that for 8 years (1988 to 1996) the Society was managed by the Administrator and that major liabilities incurred only during his tenure. A mention is also made that the society has purchased a new mixing unit after the present managing committee took charge. It is the specific case of the appellant that without filling up the retirement vacancies the society will not be able to function and the clerk functioning in the society is not qualified and would not be able to take up the additional onerous responsibility and duties of secretary. As regards the financial position, it is stated that even though Rs. 18.56 lakhs is shown as dues of the society, the society has assets worth more than Rs. 6 crores. 7. Subsequently the appellant filed another affidavit on 18th November, 1997 wherein he has given details of the profit the society got after the present management took over on 7.8.1996. In the affidavit he has also highlighted about the nature of work that is carried on by the society and also as to how it would not be possible for the clerk to look after the work of secretary. A mention is also made that because the society was short of staff members, the Kerala State Marketing Federation has deferred the granting of sole agency for the supply of wheat in Kollam and Trivandrum Districts to the society. It is specifically stated therein that without a secretary the society will not be able to function and that the present clerk is not a graduate and he is not qualified to hold the post of secretary. Along with the affidavit statements of accounts for the year 1996-97 have also been filed. 8. It is specifically stated therein that without a secretary the society will not be able to function and that the present clerk is not a graduate and he is not qualified to hold the post of secretary. Along with the affidavit statements of accounts for the year 1996-97 have also been filed. 8. In this Writ Appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant reiterated his submissions namely, that in taking steps to fill up the vacancies of secretary and attender which fell vacant by retirement, the society is carrying on its day-to-day activities and the same is not in any way violative of the bye-laws, circular, rules or provisions of the Act and that being so the respondents have no power or authority to issue the impugned orders. In support of his contention the learned counsel relied on various authorities which we will refer to in detail at a later stage. 9. Inter alia it is the case of the respondents that the society has not been functioning since 1992 in accordance with the bye-laws and that the financial condition is such that it would not be conducive to fill up the post of secretary which would mean further financial strain and that the society is already in dues to the Government as well as to the Co-operative Bank. According to the respondents, by virtue of the powers conferred under S.66(1)(a) of the Act the Registrar has power and authority to pass the impugned orders. It is the further case that it is not as if permanently the society is prevented from appointing the secretary and that as and when the financial position improves the matter can be reviewed. In support of the contention that the Registrar has got powers under S.66(1)(a) of the Act to pass the impugned order the learned Government Pleader relied on two authorities which we will consider at a later point of time. 10. Certain admitted facts may be set out here before we proceed further. The society was formed long time back. Two posts, ie. secretary and attender have been there for over 20 years and the said posts are sanctioned posts in terms of R.188. The society is carrying on two-fold activities as already referred and normally 13 people are engaged for the said activities. The society was formed long time back. Two posts, ie. secretary and attender have been there for over 20 years and the said posts are sanctioned posts in terms of R.188. The society is carrying on two-fold activities as already referred and normally 13 people are engaged for the said activities. Earlier the society was taken over in 1988 by the Administrator and in the last year the same was handed over back to the present Board on 7.8.1996. During the year 1996-97 the society got a gross profit of Rs. 63,046/- and the turn over was about Rs. 10 lakhs. Now the society is in the process of filling up the two vacancies. Neither in Ext. P3 nor Ext. P5 any illegality or irregularity is alleged by the respondents on the society in this process. By Ext. P5, the society is directed to continue its activities. Nothing is mentioned in Ext. P5 that the clerk in the society will be in a position to look after the job of the secretary also. 11. The only question that survives for consideration is as to whether the Registrar has power and authority to pass the impugned orders under S.66(1)(a) of the Act or whether the same is in the nature of interferring in the internal day-today administration of the society. 12. Before we proceed to examine the facts of the case, we can usefully refer to the relevant provision of the Act as well as the decisions of this Court touching on the subject. 13. S.66(1)(a) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 reads as follows: "The Registrar shall supervise or cause to be supervised by a person authorised by him by general or special order in writing in this behalf, the working of every society as frequently as he may consider necessary." It is this provision which according to the respondents empowers the Registrar to pass the impugned orders. As to what is the scope and extent of the power, let us first advert to some of the decisions of this Court, which in our opinion have settled the law in this regard. 14. As to what is the scope and extent of the power, let us first advert to some of the decisions of this Court, which in our opinion have settled the law in this regard. 14. In Aji v. State of Kerala reported in 1995 (1) KLT 363 a Full Bench of this Court has ruled that the Government has no power under any provision of the Act or Rules to interfere with the selection process of a Co-operative Society, as mere is no provision under the Act or Rules which authorise the Government to interfere with the selection process of the society. The Full Bench also approved the earlier ruling of this Court reported in Kottayam Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1988 (1) KLT 827) that there cannot be an assumption that the Government has got powers to intervene in the day-today administration of the Co-operative Society and that the Government cannot restrain the bank from conducting interview for appointment of clerks. 15. In yet another case reported in Kurian v. Joint Registrar (1990(1) KLT 618) this Court held that co-operative society is an autonomous body and it has got a freedom of its own and such freedom can be interfered only for certain reasons and circumstances. Relevant provision of the judgment reads: "It is true that a co-operative society must have freedom of activities. Officers of the department and the government are not to take action interfering with the autonomy of the societies. This does not mean that the society can act in any manner ignoring the provisions of the Act and the directions given by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Only when a cooperative society acts within its jurisdiction, in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the general directions of the Registrar, can they claim freedom from interference. When they violate the provisions of the bye-laws and the Act in an arbitrary manner, their actions will be subject to the supervisory control of the authorities under the Act. The committee cannot act against the interest of the society with immunity. When they violate the provisions of the bye-laws and the Act in an arbitrary manner, their actions will be subject to the supervisory control of the authorities under the Act. The committee cannot act against the interest of the society with immunity. If they resort to activities prejudicial to the interest of the society, the Registrar must have the power to curb and curtail their freedom." However, in the said case, this court interfered as the applications of eligible candidates were rejected and persons who were summoned for written test were not, informed of the interview that was to follow the test on the same day, which are in violation of the specific directions given by the Registrar. As such actions have gone to materially affect the selection the Registrar cancelled the said selection. In those circumstances, in that case this Court upheld the action of the Registrar. 16. Learned Government Pleader for the State relied on a decision reported in Trivandrum Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1992 (1) KLT 381) in support of the contention that the Registrar has power to pass the impugned order. In that case for appointment of officers in a bank a notification was issued inviting applications from eligible candidates and a date was fixed for the test and interview as 3.7.1991. But however, the Joint Registrar stayed all further proceedings pending enquiry on a complaint regarding irregularities in the process of selection. In that case, this Court held that for a Registrar to effectively exercise the power conferred under S.66 of the Act he has got the necessary power to pass such interlocutory orders. This Court held that as there was a serious complaint about the method of the appointment there is nothing wrong in the Joint Registrar staying further proceedings pending enquiry. Strictly speaking that ruling may not apply to the facts of the present case. 17. The next ruling that can be usefully referred to is one reported in Sherthallai Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1984 KLT 971). In that case the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Alleppey passed an order upgrading a society as Class II from III. But however, in the said order it was stated that appointments to be effected on account of classification of the society as Class II society can only be done with the prior approval of the Joint Registrar. In that case the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Alleppey passed an order upgrading a society as Class II from III. But however, in the said order it was stated that appointments to be effected on account of classification of the society as Class II society can only be done with the prior approval of the Joint Registrar. This part of the order was sought to be quashed in the writ petition. Considering that issue this Court ruled thus: "A reading of R.188 of Appendix 111 makes it abundantly clear mat the staff pattern is fixed by the rule itself and the rule does not require any prior approval of the Department to effect appointments to the various posts according to the staff pattern fixed under Appendix III. As per S.27 of the Act the final authority of the society vests in the general body of the members subject to the Act, the Rules and the bye-laws of the society concerned and as per S.28 a committee, is constituted by the general body in accordance with the bye-laws of the society for the purpose of management of its affairs. Bye-law 27 of the bye-laws of the society empowers the Board of Directors, namely the committee to appoint a Secretary and the other officers and employees of the society. The bye-law does not require the prior approval of the Joint Registrar or any other officer of the Department before appointments are to be made to fill up the posts. The direction in Ext. P1 requiring the society to obtain prior approval of the Joint Registrar for appointment of officers and servants of the society cannot therefore, stand and that part of the direction in Ext. P1 is accordingly quashed." 18. From the above discussion the settled legal position can be summed up as follows: The Co-operative Society functions as an autonomous body and it has got its own freedom of activities, of course within and subject to limitation of the Act, Rules, bye-laws and directions of the Registrar. So long as the society acts within its jurisdiction in conformity with the provisions of the Act, Rules bye-laws and the general directions by the Registrar, it can enjoy and autonomy and can claim freedom from interference. So long as the society acts within its jurisdiction in conformity with the provisions of the Act, Rules bye-laws and the general directions by the Registrar, it can enjoy and autonomy and can claim freedom from interference. But however, if the society violates the provisions of the Act, Rules, bye-laws or the directions of the Registrar the society will be subject to the supervisory control of the authorities under the Act and the Registrar can issue suitable and appropriate orders by virtue of powers conferred under S.66(1)(a) of the Act. The committee cannot act against the interest of the society with immunity and if the actions are prejudicial to the interests of the society, the Registrar has the powers to curb and curtail their freedom. 19. Coming to the facts of this case, as already stated above, the two posts, namely that the secretary and attender, are already sanctioned posts as per R.188 (staff pattern). Admittedly these posts had been there for over 20 years. Now what is sought to be done by the society is to fill up these vacancies which had arisen in view of their retirement. There is no dispute that in 1996-97 the society has purchased a new mixing unit and gained profits as already referred to. The society is carrying on two fold activities. For the purpose of filling up these posts the society has passed a resolution with a majority of 7 to 3 and taken up steps by making necessary advertisement and calling for applications. Certainly it cannot be said that the actions taken by the society are in any way violative of the provisions of the Act, Rules, bye-laws or the Registrar's circulars. Equally it cannot be said that the society has acted in the prejudicial manner in the interests of the society. That apart we also find that in Ext. P5 order the society has been asked to continue its activities. Equally it is not stated in Ext. P5 order that the clerk is qualified and will be able to shoulder the additional burden to act also as secretary. That apart we also find that in Ext. P5 order the society has been asked to continue its activities. Equally it is not stated in Ext. P5 order that the clerk is qualified and will be able to shoulder the additional burden to act also as secretary. This we are referring because there is a specific contention by the appellant that the clerk is not qualified to act as secretary and further the work load is such that he will not be able to function effectively and in the interest of the society, both as a clerk and as a secretary. In this regard, we may also refer to the claim made by the appellant that they would not get the agency of redistribution because the society has no staff, namely the secretary. This has not been denied by the respondents by filing any additional affidavit. There is no presumption or materials available in this case to come to a conclusion that there is no scope for the society to improve even after filling up the post of the secretary. In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the society is well within its powers to proceed with the process of appointment of secretary and attender which are statutorily sanctioned posts as already referred to. Filling up of such vacancies can only be considered as an act in the nature of day-today administration/ internal administration of the society and there may not be any reason for the respondents to interfere in this process. No illegality or irregularity is alleged by the respondents in the selection process. In this view, we would hold that the order of the first respondent Ext. P3 dated 4.6.1997 is in excess of his powers, illegal and as such liable to be quashed and accordingly the same is quashed. We would further declare that the society can. proceed to fill up the vacancies caused by the retirement of secretary and attender-cum-watchman as per the Rules and Regulations. The appeal is allowed as above.