S. B. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant-book being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 20. 4. 98 passed by a learned single Judge of this court in C. O. No. 6459 (W)/91 and C. O. No. 19069 (W)/92 allowing the writ application filed by the petitioners, has preferred this appeal. ( 2 ) BEREFT of unnecessary details, the fact of the matter is as follows :-the Board of Directors of the appellant-bank decided on 24. 11. 98 to open a branch at 4/1 Bhabanath Sen Street, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as 'shyambazar Branch') and a head clerk in-charge of the new branch was appointed. On 6. 7. 88 the Reserve Bank of India asked the Chairman of the bank of close down the said office as no permission therefor was granted as was required under section 23 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. A similar notice was issued on 11. 1. 88. On 31. 10. 88 interviews were held for recruiting the petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 for the purpose of appointment of Clerk-cum-Cashier and they were appointed on 16. 12. 88. On 2. 1. 89 petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Watchman with effect from 1. 3. 89 and petitioner No. 4 was interviewed and given appointment as messenger on 2. 8. 89. On 5. 3. 91 an Administrator was appointed by the Central Registrar on supersession of the governing body inter alia for recruiting employees directly or indirectly in alleged violation of all established procedure. On 6. 3. 91 the Administrator assumed office whereafter he allegedly visited the Shyambazar branch and found it to be closed. he further allegedly visited the said branch and found it again to be closed. ( 3 ) A write application was filed by the Board of Directors of the Bank which was marked as C. O. No. 4733 (W)/91 questioning the appointment of the Administrator on supersession of the board. By reason of an interim order, P. K. Mukherjee, J. directed the administrator to carry on only the day-to-day function and restrained him from taking any policy decision or incurring heavy expenditure without the leave of the court. It is admitted that the other writ petitioners were recruited and were posted at the Registered Office and they had subsequently been deputed to work at the Shyambazar Branch. It is admitted that the other writ petitioners were recruited and were posted at the Registered Office and they had subsequently been deputed to work at the Shyambazar Branch. The administrator asked them to join at the main Branch and on their failure to do so, they were asked to show-cause by an Order dated 11. 3. 91 as to why appropriate action for absenting from duties shall not be taken. In the writ application which was marked as C. O. No. 19026 (W)/92 the said employees claimed inter alia for issuance of a writ for quashing the said order dated 11. 3. 91. A Special Officer was appointed by the court who upon inspection reported that the cash book was open on 31. 8. 91. He opined that the writ petitioners did not function and the said branch was also not functioning. Another writ application was filed by another batch of employees which was marked as C. O. No. 1437/1998 questioning the appointment of the administrator. S. Chatterjee, J. , passed an interim order therein appointing 3 members of the bar as Special Officers for Constitution of Board of Directors. The said order was modified on 1. 9. 1993 to the extent that the affairs and the management of the bank will be Controlled by the administrator, but he would not take any policy decision or make any capital expenditure. On 12. 2. 94 the writ petitioners Nos. 3,4,5,6, and 8 of C. O. No. 6459 (W)/91 were allowed to resume their duties. An appeal preferred against the said order was disposed of with certain directions on 16. 9. 94. R. Paul, J. , issued a direction as regard holding of election for Constitution of a new Board and further directed grant of ad hoc pay to the general employees of the bank. The Special Officer was directed to take over books of account upon making an inventory and to hand-over the same to the Administration was passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. On 18. 10. The Special Officer was directed to take over books of account upon making an inventory and to hand-over the same to the Administration was passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. On 18. 10. 96 the Registrar Co-operative Society passed an order that the employees who were recruited earlier by the erstwhile management of the bank but discontinue the service due to non-availability of the posts and also non-observance of required formalities for which they had no direct responsibility may be considered for appointment in fresh terms without any benefit of past-service rendered for filling up the 4 vacancies in the bank. It was further directed that their Case may also be considered against the subsequent vacancies by relaxation of the age limit. An application was filed by the Administrator before this court praying for leave that the said order passed on 18. 10. 96 by the Registrar be given effect to but the same was not heard or disposed of by this court. ( 4 ) IN the mean time, election was held and the new Board of Directors after assuming charge prayed for leave to surrender the premises wherefrom the said branch was operating. With consent of the parties it was directed that the said premises of Shyambazar Branch be surrendered without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and it was further directed that if the writ petitioners succeed, they would be paid their salary. By reason of another order the writ petitioners of the other writ petition were permitted to join their services in the main branch. ( 5 ) MR. Bhaskar Gupta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, inter alia, submitted that the erstwhile Board of Directors made appointment of the petitioners absolutely illegally and in violation of the directives of the Reserve Bank of India and the said appointments, thus, must be held to be illegal. The learned counsel submits relying on the basis of a decision of the Bombay High Court in Shamrao Vithal Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Padubidri Pattabhiram Bhat reported in AIR 1993 Bom. 91 that the writ application is not maintainable against a Co-operative Society. According to the learned counsel keeping in view the directive of the Reserve Bank of India the concerned petitioners could not be paid their salaries as the branch office could not have been opened. Bank Ltd. v. Padubidri Pattabhiram Bhat reported in AIR 1993 Bom. 91 that the writ application is not maintainable against a Co-operative Society. According to the learned counsel keeping in view the directive of the Reserve Bank of India the concerned petitioners could not be paid their salaries as the branch office could not have been opened. However, according to the learned counsel, those employees who were deputed to work in the said Shyambazar Branch from the main branch had already been given work at the Head Office. ( 6 ) MR. Tarun kumar Roy, the learned counsel also appearing on behalf of the appellants, interalia, has drawn our attention to the fact that the judgment under appeal proceeded on the basis that the show-cause notices were issued by the Administrator were illegal. The learned counsel pointed out that in the writ petition out of which M. A. T. No. 1510 arises, has become infractuous as the majority of writ petitioners were not pursuing their cases. ( 7 ) MR. K. D. Mukherjee, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners-respondents, on the other hand, submitted that as a branch office was opened within the city itself, section 23 of the Banking Regulation Act, will have no application. The learned counsel relying on a decision of the apex court in Nayagarh Co-op. Central Bank v. Narayan Rath and Anr. reported in AIR 1977 SC 112 submitted that the writ application is maintainable. The learned counsel urged that despite the interim order passed by this court the administrator without any authority in law had stopped payment of salary to the petitioners for which the said writ petition was filed as the said action was absolutely arbitrary. Our attention was also drawn to various provisions of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984. The learned counsel has also relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Francis John v. Director of Education and Ors. reported in 1989 suppl. (2) SCC 598. ( 8 ) LET us first consider as to whether the writ petitions were maintainable. It is true that a writ petition is not normally maintainable against a Co-operative Society registered under West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act unless there has been a violation of a mandatory provision of a statute. reported in 1989 suppl. (2) SCC 598. ( 8 ) LET us first consider as to whether the writ petitions were maintainable. It is true that a writ petition is not normally maintainable against a Co-operative Society registered under West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act unless there has been a violation of a mandatory provision of a statute. This aspect of the matter has been considered in Bholanath Roy v. The state of West Bengal reported in 1996 (1) CLJ 502 wherein a large number of decisions had been taken into consideration. Reference in this connection may also be made to Mousumi Co-op. Housing Society v. Gayarti De and Ors. reported in 1998 (1) CHN 159 . However, in M/s. Northern India Seeds Corporation v. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1994 (1) BLJR 559 , It has Been held :"it has been contended by the learned Advocate-General that no writ petition is maintainable against Biscomaun. It is true that in Narendra Narain Banker v. The State of Bihar and Ors. , 1985 PLJR 1078 , Division Bench of this court has held that Biscomaun is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, The aforementioned decision has also recently been followed by another Division Bench of this court in Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union Ltd. v. State of Bihar, reported in 1993 (1) BLJR 29 . It is true that when the contract was entered into, Biscomaun was being managed in terms of its bye-laws and it is a society under the Societies Registration Act, by admittedly when the cause of action for filing of the writ application arose, the State of Bihar has taken over the management of the Biscomaun and the same are being run by an Administrator. The writ petition is, therefore, maintainable as the Biscomaun is being managed by an administrator who admittedly is a public authority. " ( 9 ) IN Nayagarh Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. and Anr. v. Narayan Rath and Anr. reported in AIR 1977 SC 112 , the apex court clearly held that a writ application would be maintainable questioning an order passed by a Statutory authority. ( 10 ) IN the instant case the petitioners have questioned the action of the part of the Administrator who appointed by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies. v. Narayan Rath and Anr. reported in AIR 1977 SC 112 , the apex court clearly held that a writ application would be maintainable questioning an order passed by a Statutory authority. ( 10 ) IN the instant case the petitioners have questioned the action of the part of the Administrator who appointed by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies. It is, therefore, not a case where the writ application was filed only against the Co-operative Society questioning its action which is non-statutory in nature. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the Administrator having been appointed by a statutory functionary under the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act would be amenable to writ jurisdiction as it has been discharging a public duty upon supersession of regularly elected Board of Directors. The said authority was bound to act reasonably. Any unreasonable or arbitrary act on the part of the said authority would attract the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and in that view of the matter there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that in the event the petitioners have been able to show that there had been any act of arbitrariness on the part of the administrator, the writ petition would be maintainable. Reference in this connection may also be made to Amalesh Sarkar v. Registrar Co-operative Society and Ors. reported in 1980 (1) CHN 514. ( 11 ) THE fact that appellant bank is registered under the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act in neither in doubt nor in dispute. The appellant-Bank is governed by the provisions of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act being a Co-operative Society. Had any action of the said society been challenged which did not involve any statutory function, a writ petition might not be maintainable as has been held in Shamrao Vithal Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Padubidri Pattabhiram Bhat reported in AIR 1993 Bombay 91. ( 12 ) SUB-SECTION (3) of section 48 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 reads thus :-"section 48. Supersession of Board.- (1) ??? (3 ). The administrator shall, subject to the control of the Central Registrar and to such instructions as be may from time to time give, have power to exercise all or any of the functions of the Board or of any officer of the multi-State Co-operative Society and take all such actions as may be required in the interests of the society. The administrator shall, subject to the control of the Central Registrar and to such instructions as be may from time to time give, have power to exercise all or any of the functions of the Board or of any officer of the multi-State Co-operative Society and take all such actions as may be required in the interests of the society. " ( 13 ) AS an administrator is to be appointed by the Central Registrar on supersession of the Board, he in my opinion being a nominee of the Central Registrar would be amenable to writ jurisdiction. See AIR 1977 SC 112 , 5. ( 14 ) IN these applications there are two groups of employee : i. e. (a) those who upon appointment were posted in Shyambazar and (b) those who were deputed to the branch from the Head Office. ( 15 ) BANKING Regulation Act was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to banking. Section 23 of the said Act reads thus :-"restrictions on opening of new, and transfer of existing places of business. Without obtaining the Prior permission of the Reserve Bank- (a)no banking company shall open a new place of business in India or change otherwise than within the same city, town or village, the location of an existing place of business situated in India; and (b)no banking company incorporated in India shall open a new place of business outside India or change, otherwise than within the same city, town or village in any country or area outside India, the location of an existing place of business situated in that country or area : provided that nothing in this sub-section shall to the opening for a period not exceeding one month of a temporary place of business within a city, town or village or the environs thereof within which the banking company already has a place of business, for the purpose of affording banking facilities to the public on the occasion of an exhibition, a conference or a male or any other like occasion. " ( 16 ) IT is, thus, evident that the appellant-bank could not have opened a new branch within the permission of the Reserve Bank of India. It is further true that interviews have been held and appointments have been made after the Reserve Bank directed closure of the said branch by its letter dated 6. 7. 88/11. 8. 88. " ( 16 ) IT is, thus, evident that the appellant-bank could not have opened a new branch within the permission of the Reserve Bank of India. It is further true that interviews have been held and appointments have been made after the Reserve Bank directed closure of the said branch by its letter dated 6. 7. 88/11. 8. 88. A question, however, arises that does it mean that the appointments of the writ petitioners were illegal? The appellants in their affidavit-in-opposition merely stated that such alleged unlawful activities on the part of the Board of Directors led to its supersession. ( 17 ) IT is true that the order of supersession dated 5. 3. 91 as contained in annexure 'p' to the affidavit-in-opposition, inter alia, states :-"the said Board recruited a large number of employees who are related to the Directors of the said Board directly or indirectly without observing any norm in such recruitment and appointment in violation of all established procedures. " ( 18 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant despite our queries has failed to produce any recruitment rules of the bank. It also does not appear that any allegation has been made that recruitment of the petitioners have been made in violation of any mandatory provisions of the recruitment rules or the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act and/or the rules of bye-laws framed thereunder. ( 19 ) IT may be that opening of a brach by the appellant bank in violation of the provisions of the section 23 of the Banking Regulations Act was illegal but there is nothing on records to show that any appointment was made solely for the purpose of working at the said branch. Although the appellant bank was bound to carry out that directives of the Reserve Bank of India in terms of the Banking Regulations Act, the same does not mean that any such order issued by the Reserve Bank of India would affect the employees adversely. ( 20 ) THE appointment letters issued by the bank in favour of the writ petitioners do not show that they were appointed for the aforementioned Shyambazar Branch. They are appointed temporarily and they were to be paid salary according to the service conditions in respect of the post held by them. ( 20 ) THE appointment letters issued by the bank in favour of the writ petitioners do not show that they were appointed for the aforementioned Shyambazar Branch. They are appointed temporarily and they were to be paid salary according to the service conditions in respect of the post held by them. The petitioners have contended that some of such appointees have been posted in the Head Office a whereas some of them had been posted in branch office. Thus, they had no hands as regard their posting. If their appointments were irregular, it was open to the appellant to take such action as against them as is permissible in-law but the Administrator had absolutely no jurisdiction to direct stoppage of payment of salary without following the procedure laid down under law and or without terminating their services. Right to receive salary is right of property and/or takin to such right within the meaning of Article 300a of the Constitution of India. ( 21 ) FURTHERMORE, the Administrator was permitted by this court in carrying out only day-to-day administration and not to be take any policy decision without the leave of the court. The decision to stop payment of salary to the employees is a major policy decision. The Administrator was bound to take leave of the court before such a course of action could be taken recourse to. ( 22 ) IN Clarke and Others v. Chadburn and Ors. reported in 1985 (1) All England Law Reports 211, it has been held :-"i need not cite authority for the proposition that it is of high importance that orders of the court should be obeyed. Wilful disobedience to an order of the court is punishable as a contempt of court, and I feel no doubt that such disobedience may properly be described as being illegal. If by such disobedience the persons enjoined claim that they have validly effected some change in the rights and liabilities of others, I cannot see why it should be said that although they are liable to penalties for contempt of court for doing what they did, nevertheless those acts were validly done. Of course, if an act is done, it is not undone merely by pointing out that it was done in breach of the law. " ( 23 ) IN Century Flour Mills Limited v. S. Suppiah and Ors. Of course, if an act is done, it is not undone merely by pointing out that it was done in breach of the law. " ( 23 ) IN Century Flour Mills Limited v. S. Suppiah and Ors. reported in AIR 1975 Madras 270, delivery of possession granted in violation of an order of stay was held to be a nullity. Reference in this connection also been made to Satyabrata Biswas and Others v. Kalyan Kumar Kisku and Others reported in 1994 (2) SCC 266 . ( 24 ) AS noticed hereinbefore the respondents have not stated as to how and in what manner the appointment of the writ petitioners have been made in violation of all norms. The allegation made in this application for addition of party are absolutely vague. In view of the matter, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the action of the Administrator in stopping of the salary of the writ petitioners cannot be said to be legal. ( 25 ) THE opinion expressed by the Central Registrar in his order of supersession is not binding on the employees nor thereby their services would be deemed to have been terminated. Thus, without terminating the services of the writ petitioners the Administrator could not have directed stoppage of payment of salaries. ( 26 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned there is no merit in these appeals which an accordingly dismissed. However, it will be open to the appellant to take recourse to such action as against the employees as is permissible in law. By order dated 11. 5. 98, keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant that they had no place to accommodate all the 97 employees, this court directed that the appellant without prejudice to the rights to the contentions of the parties in this appeal may not take any work from the writ petitioners, but they shall be paid their salary w. e. f. 27. 4. 98. If the allegation made by the appellant are correct it would be open to the appellant to take such action as regard payment of arrears salary as to permissible in law. In the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. B. Panigrahi, J.-I agree. Appeal dismissed