A. J. SADASHIVA, J. ( 1 ) THESE petitions filed in the name of an unfortunate Co-operative Society which is yet to take off, reveal the ongoing power struggle to take control of the affairs of the Society and indicates the fierce power struggle to follow, which appears to be the bane of most of the co-operative institutions in the country. ( 2 ) ). The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies [urban Banks], Karnataka State,by his letter dated July 4, 1995, sought prior clearance of Reserve Bank of India, for registration of Hemavathi Mahila Sahakari Bank Niyamitha, Hassan, pursuant to the application filed by the Chief Promoter and Promoters of the said Bank to establish a Co-operative Bank, exclusively by the women, of the women and for the women, in Hassan District. The Reserve Bank of India by its communication dated January 29, 1996, advised the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies that they have no objection to register the said Bank under the Co-operative Societies Act, subject to the conditions that the area of operation of the proposed Bank is confined to the Municipal limits of Hassan city and urban and semi-urban area of Hassan District with 10 Kms. peripheral area from headquarters city and the membership of the proposed Mahila Bank should be 100% for women as also loan/advances granted for women and the promoters should enrol from the bank's area of operations at least 1500 members engaged in different avocations such as artisans, small scale industrial units, small traders/business women, professional self-employed, etc. and also collect from them a minimum share capital of Rs. 12,50,000/- before they file their applications for licence, etc. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Urban Bank Cell, communicated the same to the Chief Promoter of the said Bank as per Annexure R-1 imposing conditions that the membership of the Bank shall be confined only to persons residing within the area of operation and the application shall be filed for registration of the Bank within 45 days along with certain particulars including the names, addresses and the contribution towards share of each of the persons. ( 3 ) THAT after no objections from R. B. I. , there was some slackness among the Chief Promoter and Promoters in relation to the enrolment of members and collection of share capital. ( 3 ) THAT after no objections from R. B. I. , there was some slackness among the Chief Promoter and Promoters in relation to the enrolment of members and collection of share capital. The Chief Promoter, one Smt. Usha Murthy did not attend the meeting of the promoters held on 22-2-1996, 6-3-1996 and 4-4-1996 for personal reasons. However, she resigned as Chief Promoter on 26-3-1996. ( 4 ) THAT, at the meeting of the promoters held on 4-4-1996, the resignation of Smt. Usha Krishnamurthy was accepted and Smt. V. G. Lalithamma was elected as the new Chief Promoter. The new Chief Promoter was elected after contest between Smt. V. G. Lalithamma and Smt. Jayalakshmi Rajanna Gowda, as both of them desired to become the Chief Promoter. ( 5 ) THAT on 31-10-1996, the Chief Promoter and the Promoters filed applications under Section 6 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, for short "the Act", in the prescribed form before the 2nd respondent with all particulars and relevant documents for registration of the Bank. Even though the application was filed on 31-10-1996 it was not registered till 28-7-1997 within which period the following events took place. ( 6 ) AS stated supra, a list of 3,530 persons who contributed towards the initial share capital was submitted to the 2nd respondent along with the application for registration of the Bank under the provisions of the Act. That, on 19-2-1997 the 3rd respondent addressed a letter to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Hassan, as per Annexure R-3 requesting him to include all the applications before registering the Society. The 3rd respondent has alleged in the said letter that she had requested the Chief Promoter to register the persons enrolled by her as members and no action has been taken by the Chief Promoter till then and as the Chief Promoter refused to accept her applications she had already filed her objections. She has also stated that the share capital collected by her has been deposited into the Bank and, therefore, she requested the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies to include all the applications before registering the Society. The xerox copy of the challan for having deposited Rs. 50,000/- by the 3rd respondent towards the share capital is produced at Annexure R-2. She has also stated that the share capital collected by her has been deposited into the Bank and, therefore, she requested the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies to include all the applications before registering the Society. The xerox copy of the challan for having deposited Rs. 50,000/- by the 3rd respondent towards the share capital is produced at Annexure R-2. That, at the meeting of the promoters held in the presence of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 12-5-1997 it was decided to include 100 persons in the list of persons who have contributed towards the initial share capital and as the 3rd respondent handed over the applications of such 100 persons. It was also decided to issue receipt books to Smt. Jayalakshmi Rajanna Gowda to enrol the other 300 persons and as it is reasonable to include them also in the list of persons who contributed towards initial share capital. The 3rd respondent by letter dated 23-6-1997 as per Annexure R-4 addressed to Smt. V. G. Lalithamma, the Chief Promoter, requested her to include 303 persons mentioned in the list annexed to the said letter in the list of members to take action to register the Bank. By representation dated 15-7-1997, the Chief Promoter brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent of the pendency of the application for registration for over 9 months and requested to take immediate action to register the said Bank. The 2nd respondent by his order dated 28-7-1997 issued under Section 7 of the Act, registered the petitioner-Bank along with the bye-laws and directed the Chief Promoter to invite 300 persons also found in the list furnished by the 3rd respondent to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies along with the 100 persons whose applications were handed over to the Chief Promoter, at the meeting of the Promoters held on 12-5-1997, to the First General Body Meeting of the Society to be held within 30 days from the date of the order. ( 7 ) THE petitioner having been aggrieved by the aforesaid direction to invite 300 persons as found in the list said to have been furnished by the 3rd respondent to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies has filed W. P. 23212/1997 and obtained an interim stay of operation of the said direction as per order dated 27-8-1997. ( 7 ) THE petitioner having been aggrieved by the aforesaid direction to invite 300 persons as found in the list said to have been furnished by the 3rd respondent to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies has filed W. P. 23212/1997 and obtained an interim stay of operation of the said direction as per order dated 27-8-1997. ( 8 ) PURSUANT to the order of registration dated 28-7-1997, the promoters decided to hold the First General Body Meeting on 30-8-1997 and accordingly caused a notice dated 7-8-1997 of the First General Body Meeting, issued to the persons who have contributed towards initial share capital to attend the said meeting. ( 9 ) THE 2nd respondent in view of the recommendation of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Hassan, issued an order dated 7-8-1997 as per Annexure R-5 appointing the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Hassan as the Returning Officer to conduct the elections to the Committee of Management of the petitioner-Bank at the First General Meeting of the persons contributing towards initial share capital. Accordingly, the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued a notice dated 11-8-1997 addressed to the 3rd respondent requiring her to contact him immediately at his office to get the date for General Body Meeting prescribed and to take steps for issue of calendar of events in respect of the elections to the Committee of Management. The 2nd respondent, on the representation of Smt. Jayalakshmi Rajanna Gowda, issued an order dated 16/18-8-1997 ordering to postpone the First General Meeting of the members of the petitioner-Society scheduled to be held on 30-8-1997 and further directed the Chief Promoter to take such steps as allowed in law to hold the General Body Meeting and the elections on or before 30-9-1997. The Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Hassan, also appeared to have issued notice to the Chief Promoter calling upon her to postpone the General Body Meeting of the members of the petitioner-Bank. However, the General Meeting of the persons who have contributed towards the initial share capital of the petitioner-Bank was held on 30-8-1997 and transacted the business including the election of the members to the Committee of Management of the petitioner-Bank. ( 10 ) THAT, on the same day, the Committee of Management is stated to have held the meeting and Smt. V. G. Lalithamma is stated to have been elected as the President. ( 10 ) THAT, on the same day, the Committee of Management is stated to have held the meeting and Smt. V. G. Lalithamma is stated to have been elected as the President. She was also authorised to take steps for securing the licence from the Reserve Bank of India to commence the business of the Bank. After the General Meeting, the proceedings of the General Body Meeting was submitted to the 2nd respondent for approval and necessary action. It further appears that in the meanwhile, the 2nd respondent had already received the report of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Hassan, that the meeting was not held in accordance with law; the meeting held in spite of the order of postponing the meeting is illegal and the election to the Committee of Management without notifying the same in the meeting notice is invalid. ( 11 ) THE 2nd respondent after considering the report of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies vis-a-vis the report of the petitioner, passed an order dated 20-9-1997 as per Annexure-G in W. P. No. 29129/97, cancelling the proceedings of the First General Body Meeting of the Bank held on 30-8-1997 inter alia holding that it is illegal and void. Pursuant to the said order, the 2nd respondent issued another order dated 23-9-1997 appointing the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Hassan Sub-Division, Hassan, under Section 14 (b) (1) of the Act, as the Returning Officer to conduct the elections to the Committee of Management of the petitioner-Bank on or before 31-10-1997. The Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies accorddingly issued a notice dated nil, to conduct the elections to the Board of Directors of the petitioner-Bank on 22-10-1997 in Shringeri Shankar Mutt and also issued the calendar of events. ( 12 ) THE petitioner having been aggrieved by the orders of the 2nd respondent cancelling the proceedings of the General Body Meeting and the appointing of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies as Returning Officer and the calendar of events issued by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies as per Annexures-G, J and K respectively, has filed W. P. No. 29129/1997 for quashing the same. ( 13 ) WITH the consent of the learned Counsel appearing on both the sides, both these petitions are clubbed, heard together and disposed of by this common order. ( 13 ) WITH the consent of the learned Counsel appearing on both the sides, both these petitions are clubbed, heard together and disposed of by this common order. ( 14 ) SRI K. L. Manjunath, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the 2nd respondent has no authority of law to issue any direction in relation to the membership of the Bank in the order of registration of a Co-operative Society made under Section 7 of the Act. It is his contention that the authority to admit or not to admit a person as a member of a Co-operative Society vests in the Committee of Management and the Committee of Management after having scrutinised the applications would either admit or refuse to admit the applicant as a member and the Registrar has no authority of law either to admit a person as a member or to issue any direction to admit such person as member of a Co-operative Society otherwise than an order made in an appeal. With reference to the facts of this case, Sri. K. L. Manjunath, has contended that in view of the conditions imposed in "no objection certificates" issued by the Reserve Bank of India and also the qualifictions of a person to become the member of the Society it is for the Promoters to include or not to include the contributors in the list of persons elegible to participate at the First General Meeting and the Registrar while making an order under Section 7 of the Act, has no authority of law to issue any direction in excess of the power vested under Section 7 of the Act. ( 15 ) SRI K. L. Manjunath, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner dealing with the order dated 20-9-1997 issued by the 2nd respondent as per Annexure-G in W. P. No. 29129/1997 has contended that the order is illegal and inoperative as having been made without providing the petitioner any opportunity of being heard. He has further contended that there was no reason for the 2nd respondent to appoint the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Hassan Sub-Division, Hassan as the Returning Officer for the First General Meeting of the Society to be presided over by the Chief Promoter in the absence of any provision providing for appointment of Returning Officer. He has further contended that there was no reason for the 2nd respondent to appoint the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Hassan Sub-Division, Hassan as the Returning Officer for the First General Meeting of the Society to be presided over by the Chief Promoter in the absence of any provision providing for appointment of Returning Officer. It is for the General Body to evolve a procedure to elect the Board of Directors if there are more than required number of candidates. He has further contended that the order directing the postponement of the First General Body Meeting is not served on the Chief Promoter and, therefore, the postponement of the meeting is bad. He has further contended that in view of the cancellation of the proceedings of the meeting, the appointment of Returning Officer and the calendar of events issued by the Returning Officer are null and void. ( 16 ) ELABORATING his contention Sri Manjunath, has contended that in view of cancellation of the proceedings of the General Body Meeting there were no members of the Bank to conduct the elections. In the absence of admitting the persons contributed towards the initial share capital as members of the Bank, no elections could be held. Consequently, the appointment of Returning Officer to hold the elections and the calendar of events issued by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies as per Annexures-J and K are invalid and inoperative. ( 17 ) SRI Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 6 has contended that the Registrar of a Co-operative Society has authority of law to hold an enquiry and to call for further particulars as may deem necessary under sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960, hereinafter called "the Rules", to register a Co-operative Society under Section 7 of the Act. It is his contention that the power to hold an enquiry includes the power to issue directions for better functioning of a Co-operative Society. It is his contention that the power to hold an enquiry includes the power to issue directions for better functioning of a Co-operative Society. The Registrar in order to promote co-operation among the members of the Society and after having satisfied that 400 persons have paid subscription and have filed applications have been excluded from the list of subscribers of a Co-operative Bank without any reasonable excuse, directed the Chief Promoter to include them also in the list of persons invited to the First General Body Meeting of the Society and such powers cannot be called either arbitrary or without authority of law. Sri Jayakumr S. Patil has further contended that the Chief Promoter of the Bank has flouted all rules, bye-laws and directions issued by the Registrar in order to establish her control over the affairs of the Bank. She, not only refused to issue Receipt Books to the 3rd respondent to receive contribution from the members but refused to receive applications submitted by her also, only with an intention of establishing her control over the affairs of the Bank. It is the case of the 3rd respondent that the petitioner held the General Body Meeting on 30-8-1997 even though it was postponed by the Registrar and without issuing notice to all the subscribers and without notifying the election to the Committee of Management in the meeting notice only with a view to prevent all the members from attending the General Body Meeting. If the election has been held without issuing any notice to the members it is void ab initio and the Registrar, therefore, rightly declared the proceedings void. Sri Jayakumar S. Patil has further contended that under Section 27 of the Act, the Registrar has authority of law to postpone the General Body Meeting of a Society and the First General Body Meeting held on 30-8-1997 in respect of the same having been postponed by the Registrar is without authority of law and it is illegal and void. Under Rule 14 (b) the Registrar has authority of law to appoint a Returning Officer notwithstanding such an election is an election to the first Committee of Management or any other Committee. Under Rule 14 (b) the Registrar has authority of law to appoint a Returning Officer notwithstanding such an election is an election to the first Committee of Management or any other Committee. ( 18 ) SRI R. I. D'sa, learned HCGA supporting the order of Registrar has contended that in the facts and circumstances of this case the Registrar left with no alternative but to declare the proceedings of the General Body Meeting invalid as the elections were held without notice to all the subscribers. ( 19 ) IN view of the aforesaid contentions, the following points would arise for consideration :- (1) Whether the 2nd respondent has authority of law to issue any direction to the Chief Promoter to include any person in the list of persons contributed towards initial share capital ? (2) Whether the respondent has authority of law to declare the proceedings of the General Body Meeting held on 30-8-1997 as illegal and void? (3) Whether the appointment of Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Hassan Sub-Division, Hassan, as the Returning Officer to conduct the elections to the Board of Directors of the petitioner-Bank and consequential issue of calendar of events is valid and operative? ( 20 ) ). Point No. 1 ;sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Act read with Rule 3 of the Rules deal with the registration of Co-operative Societies. They read as follows :"6. Application for Registration of Co-operative Societies : (1) An application for the registration of a co-operative society shall be made to the Registrar in such form as may be prescribed; and the applicant shall furnish to him all such information about the society as he may require. (2) Every such application shall conform to the following requirements namely; (a) the application shall be accompanied by three copies of the proposed bye-laws of the co-operative society; (b) Where all the applicants are invididuals, the number of applicants shall not be less than ten; (c) every one of the applicants who is an individual shall be above the age of eighteen years; (d) where the objects of the co-operative society include the creation of funds to be lent to its members and where all the applicants are individuals, the applicants shall reside in the same village or town or in the same group of villages or belongs to the same class or pursue the same occupation. (e) the application shall be signed by every one of the applicants who is an individual and by a person duly authorised on behalf of any co-operative society which is an applicant. 7. Registration :- (1) If the Registrar is satisfied,- (a) that the application complies with the provisions of this Act and the rules; (b) that the objects of the proposed society are in accordance with Section 4; (c) that the aims of the proposed society are not inconsisent with the principles of social justice; (d) that the proposed bye-laws are not contrary to the provisions of this Act and the rules; and (e) that the proposed society complies with the requirement of sound business and has reasonable chances of success,the Registrar may register the co-operative society and its bye-laws. (2) If the registrar is unable to dispose of an application for registration within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the application, he shall make a report to the State Government stating therein the reasons therefor. (3) Where the Registrar refuses to register a proposed co-operative society, he shall forthwith communicate his decision with the reasons therefor to the person making the application and if there be more than one, to the person who has signed first in the application. (4) The Registrar shall maintain a register of all co-operative societies registered or deemed to be registered under this Act. 8. Registration Certificate :-Where a co-operative society is registered under this Act the Registrar shall issue a certificate of registration signed by him, which shall be conclusive evidence that the co-operative society therein mentioned is a co-operative society duly registered under this Act. "rule 3. "application for registration and procedure ; (1) Every application for the registration of a co-operative society under Section 6 shall contain the particulars specified and be in the form given in Schedule-A appeneded to these Rules. The application shall also mention the name and address of one of the applicants to whom any communication may be sent by the Registrar. (2) In cases where the application for registration under Section 6 is signed by a person authorised on behalf of any co-operative society which is one of the applicant, a copy of the resolution of the committee of such society giving such authority shall accompany the application. (2) In cases where the application for registration under Section 6 is signed by a person authorised on behalf of any co-operative society which is one of the applicant, a copy of the resolution of the committee of such society giving such authority shall accompany the application. (3) The Registrar may, for the purpose of satisfying himself of the matters specified in Section 7, call for such further particulars or make such inquiry as may deem necessary. He may permit the applicant, if so desired by them, in writing, to make such alterations or additions to the proposed bye-laws submitted with the application, in order to make them conform to the provisions of the Act and the rules thereunder. (4) If the Registrar refuses to register a co-operative society, he shall communicate the orders of refusal by registered post to the applicant mentioned in the application under sub-rule (1 ). " ( 21 ) SCHEDULE-A deals with the form of application for registration of Co-operative Societies prescribed under Rule 3. Item 6 of the applications deals with the annexure to be submitted along with the application. It reads thus :"6. With this application are sent two copies of the proposed bye-laws signed by each of the applicants and a statement showing name, age, profession and place of residence of each subscriber. "the no objection dated 29-1-1996 issued by the Reserve Bank of India requires that the proposed Bank shall enrol from the Bank's area of operation at least 1500 persons engaged in different avocations. Annexure -R1 produced by the 3rd respondent is a communication from the 2nd respondent to the petitioner-Bank pursuant to the no objection issued by the Reserve Bank of India. It contains terms and conditions subject to which the promoters are required to collect the share capital. Clause (2) limits the membership only to the persons residing within the limits of area of operation of the Bank. Clause (7) of the said communication requires the Bank to file an application for registration of the Society within 45 days from the date of the order along with certain particulars which includes the name, address and share capital contributed by the subscribers. ( 22 ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner filed an application under Section 6 of the Act with all the particulars and Annexures on 31-10-1996. ( 22 ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner filed an application under Section 6 of the Act with all the particulars and Annexures on 31-10-1996. The 3rd respondent appeared to have collected the share capital from 400 members subsequent to the date of application and deposited the sum of Rs. 50,000/- on 19-2-1997 and represented to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies that the applications submitted by her were not taken into account by the Chief Promoter. On 12 -5-1997 at the meeting held in the presence of the 2nd respondent, the applications filed by 100 persons were handed over to the Chief Promoter. She has also stated to have sent a list of 300 persons to the Chief Promoter on 23-6-1997 as per Annexure-R4. There is no material on record as to the submission of the applications of these 303 persons containing the particulars of their age, their residence, etc. , as required in the Form prescribed under Rule 3. In view of the conditions that the membership is confined only to those who have been the residents within the area of operation of the Bank, it is contended by Sri K. L. Manjunath, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the Promoters were not in a position to verify whether these 300 persons are residing within the area of operation of the Bank in the absence of applications filed by them. It is the further contention that even otherwise either Section 7 or Rule 3 of the Act and the Rules would not empower the Registrar to issue any direction to the Chief Promoter in relation to the admission of membership. In the absence of any provision empowering the Registrar to issue such direction, the direction issued by him to the Chief Promoter to include 300 persons in the list of subscribers contributed towards the initial share capital and to invite them to participate at the First General Body Meeting of the Bank is without authority of law. ( 23 ) IT is no doubt true that Sections 16, 17 of the Act deals with the admission of members and the disqualification. But they are not relevant for the purpose of this case as it is not the case of either of the parties that the application filed by the persons for admission as members of the Society have been considered or not considered. But they are not relevant for the purpose of this case as it is not the case of either of the parties that the application filed by the persons for admission as members of the Society have been considered or not considered. Clause (b) of bye-law 17 (3) of the bye-laws of the Bank provides for qualification for admission and it reads as follows. Bye-law 17 (3) of the bye-laws of the Bank deals with the qualifications for admission and it reads as follows :"17 (3 ). Qualifications for admission :-The following are the qualifications for admission as members :- (a) An individual who is above 18 years of age and not an employee of the Bank and who can enter into a legal contract; (b) A person who resides in the area of operation of bank or carries on business or works in the area of operation and who is not a member of any other Co-operative Bank or non-agricultural Co-operative Credit Society; (c) He is not disqualified under Section 17 of the Act. "from the aforesaid provisions it is, therefore, clear that a person who subscribes towards initial share capital should have the qualifications for admission as member. In the abesence of any application filed by them it is not possible for anybody to decide whether such a person is qualified to be admitted as a member. In the absence of any application filed by such person if Promoters refused to include their names in the list of persons contributed towards initial share capitl it cannot be said that they have acted arbitrarily. In those circusmtances there was no material for the Registrar to direct the Chief Promoter to invite 300 persons also to the First General Body Meeting of the Co-operative Bank. Even at the meeting held on 12-5-1997, the 3rd respondent Smt. Jayalakshmi Rajanna Gowda handed over only 100 applications and it is the case of the petitioner that the notices have been sent to them also. ( 24 ) EVEN otherwise, either Section 7 or Rule 3 does not empower the Registrar to issue any direction to the Chief Promoter to include any person in the list of subscribers and to invite such person also to participate at the First Annual General Body Meeting. ( 24 ) EVEN otherwise, either Section 7 or Rule 3 does not empower the Registrar to issue any direction to the Chief Promoter to include any person in the list of subscribers and to invite such person also to participate at the First Annual General Body Meeting. It is true that sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules empowers the Registrar to make such enquiry for the purpose of satisfying himself of the matter specified in Section 7 only. By virtue of Section 7, the Registrar should be satisfied that the applicant complies with the provisions of the Act and the objections of the Society are in accordance with Section 7 and that the aims of the proposed Society are not inconsisent with the principles of social justice and the proposed bye-laws are not contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules and the proposed Society complies with the requirements of sound business and has reasonable chances of success. In the absence of any provision as to the enquiry of the Registrar in relation to the inclusion of any person in the list of subscribers contributed towards initial share capital the impugned direction issued by the Registrar is without authority of law. ( 25 ) POINTS 2 and 3 :it is contended by Sri K. L. Manjunath, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the order dated 16/18-8-1997 issued by the 2nd respondent directing the postponement of the First General Body Meeting was not served on the petitioner, and therefore, the election held on 30-8-1997 was in accordance with law. It is his further contention that the Registrar had no power to postpone the First General Body Meeting and he has no authority of law to appoint a Returning Officer to conduct the elections as the subscribers were not admitted as members yet and the procedure adopted by the Registrar is against the well established principles. It is his further contention that the impugned order dated 20-9-1997 cancelling the proceedings of the First Annual General Body Meeting on the ground that it is illegal and void is unsustainable in law as having been made without providing the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. It is his further contention that the impugned order dated 20-9-1997 cancelling the proceedings of the First Annual General Body Meeting on the ground that it is illegal and void is unsustainable in law as having been made without providing the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. He has also contended that the order of appointing the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies as the Returning Officer as per Annexure-J and the calendar of events issued by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies as per Annexure-K are also illegal and inoperative in view of the order dated 20-9-1997 made by the 2nd respondent as per Annexure-G being illegal and void. ( 26 ) SRI Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for respondent 3 and the learned HCGA Sri R. I. D'sa would not dispute that the order dated 16/18-8-1997 issued by the 2nd respondent directing the postponement of the First General Body Meeting scheduled to be held on 30-8-1997 was not served on the petitioner. However, they contended that the petitioner avoided the service and refused to acknowledge the same and, therefore, the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies published the same in the daily published in Hassan. The First General Body Meeting held on 30-8-1997 is, therefore, without authority of law and in view of the General Body having been held contrary to the direction issued by the Registrar in exercise of the power under Section 27 of the Act, the petitioner was not entitled for any hearing before making the impugned order. It is also contended by the learned HCGA that the petitioner also did not contact the Returning Officer to conduct the election to the Board and did not send the meeting notice to all the sharesholders. In the absence of any notice from the Returning Officer to the Chief Promoter to contact him, the contention of the learned HCGA does not hold water. Even the notice issued by the Returning Officer does not indicate to whom such notice was addressed except the 3rd respondent. The paper publication was signed by the Assistant Registrar who was not authorised by law to issue such a notice. The 2nd respondent did not take any step to serve the order of postponement of General Body Meeting on the petitioner. The paper publication was signed by the Assistant Registrar who was not authorised by law to issue such a notice. The 2nd respondent did not take any step to serve the order of postponement of General Body Meeting on the petitioner. As the legality or otherwise of the impugned order dated 20-9-1997 made by the 2nd respondent as per Annexure-G could be decided on the short ground of violation of principles of natural justice, I do not think that it is necessary for me to consider the other contentions raised by the parties. It is admitted that the 2nd respondent has passed the impugned order dated 20-9-1997 cancelling the proceedings of the First General Body Meeting dated 30-8-1997 on the ground that it is illegal and void and has been made without notice to the petitioners. He passed the impugned order only on the basis of the report of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Hassan. It is well settled that any order made by any authority against any person adversely affecting his/her interest without providing such person an opportunity of being heard, is unsustainable in law. ( 27 ) PURSUANT to the order dated 20-9-1997, the 2nd respondent appointed the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Hassan Sub-Division, Hassan, as the Returning Officer under Rule 14 (1) (b) of the Rules to hold elections to the Board of Directors of the petitioner-Bank as per Annexure-J pursuant to which the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Socities has issued calender of events as per Annexure-K. ( 28 ) IN view of the order dated 20-9-1997 made by the 2nd respondent having been declared illegal for having made in violation of principles of natural justice all consequential acts would become inoperative. Even otherwise, in view of the order dated 20-9-1997 made by the 2nd respondent cancelling the proceedings of the First General Body Meeting dated 30-8-1997, the appoitnment of the Returning Officer and the consequential issue of calendar of events by the Returning Officer serves no purpose, having regard to the bye-laws of the petitioner-Bank in relation to the proceedings at the First General Body Meeting. ( 29 ) BYE-LAW 34 of the bye-laws deals with the First General Body Meeting and it reads as follows :34. ( 29 ) BYE-LAW 34 of the bye-laws deals with the First General Body Meeting and it reads as follows :34. 1 : FIRST GENERAL MEETING :the First General Meeting of the members who have contributed towards initial share capital shall be conducted within one month of its registration by the Chief Promoter and the Chief Promoter shall preside over such first General Meeting. 34. 2. The First General Body shall transact the following business :- (A) Reading and recording of the General meeting notice; (b) Reading and recording of the bye-laws approved by the Registrar and Registration Certificate issued by the Registrar; (c) Admission of inviduals who had joined in the application for registration/applied for membership along with the share amount prior to the registration as members; (d) Scrutinising and approving the expenditure incurred by the Chief Promoter till the registration and upto the date of First General Meeting; (e) Election of the Board of Directors; (f) Approval of the budget for the current year. (g) Any other subject with the permission of the Chair. "from the aforesaid bye-law, it is clear that all the "individuals who had joined in the application for registration/applied for membership along with the share amount prior to the registration as members" would be admitted to the membership of the Co-operative Bank at the First General Body Meeting. From the proceedings of the First General Body Meeting it is seen that about 3530 persons have been admitted as members of the petitioner-Bank. If the order dated 20-9-1997 made by the 2nd respondent and impugned in W. P. 29129/1997 is held to be valid, there would be no members of the petitioner Co-operative Bank either to contest or to vote at the election to the Board of Directors. In view of the entire proceedings of the General Body Meeting having been cancelled, it is not possible to comprehend as to why the Returning Officer was appointed and what is the purpose sought to be achieved by such appointment. The issue of calendar of events is an exercise in futility for there would be no members to conduct the elections. ( 30 ) BEFORE parting with these petitions it is just and appropriate to make certain observations:the co-operative movement was started with the noble idea of inculcating a sense of thrift, mutual help, friendship, and co-operation. The movement has grown in volume as time passed. ( 30 ) BEFORE parting with these petitions it is just and appropriate to make certain observations:the co-operative movement was started with the noble idea of inculcating a sense of thrift, mutual help, friendship, and co-operation. The movement has grown in volume as time passed. In spite of its enormous growth it has failed to achieve the most important factor of the movement, viz. , co-operation. The co-operation cannot be achieved without a little sacrifice, understanding, sense of sharing and caring between the persons and making way for the newcomers. Acquisition of power should not be the sole criterion. The object of co-operation is to share the service and to care for the betterment of the society and it is lacking in abundance in this case. ( 31 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, I make the following order :-THESE petitions are allowed. The impugned direction in Annexure-F in W. P. 23212/1997 directing the Chief Promoter to include 300 members in the list of persons contributed towards initial share capital and to invite them to the First General Body Meeting is hereby declared inoperative as having been made without authority of law. The order dated Sept. 20, 1997 issued by the 2nd respondent, in W. P. No. 29129/1997 as per Annexure G is hereby quashed. Consequently, the appointment of 4th respondent as the Returning Officer as per Annexure-I and the calendar of events made by the 4th respondent as per Annexure-K are also quashed. Liberty is reserved to the 2nd respondent to make appropriate orders on the representation filed by the petitioner in respect of the General Body Meeting held on 30-8-1997 after providing an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and to respondents 6 to 9. ( 32 ) IN the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .