D. S. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Shri Z. K. Hassan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri K. M. Sahai, learned standing counsel of the State of U. P. , representing the respondent No. 1. ( 2 ) THE order dated 8th October. 1993. passed by the respondent No. 1 in exercise of powers under Section 29 (4) of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act. 1965. as it then stood. is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 3 ) BY the impugned order, the respondent No. 1 has purported to appoint a new Managing committee of the Authortan West Employees Cooperative Rin Sahkari Samiti Ltd. . Kanpur, modifying its earlier order dated 9th July. 1993. whereby another Managing Committee, of which petitioners claim to be members, had been appointed. ( 4 ) THE submission of the learned counsel of the petitioners is that the respondent No. 1 lacked power to modify the order dated 9th July, 1993 and appoint new Managing Committee by the impugned order. ( 5 ) IT is not disputed that the respondent No. 1 had power to appoint a Managing Committee of cooperative Society. In the given circumstances, if the respondent had statutory power to pass order appointing a Managing Committee, he had the power to amend the said order and pass fresh order appointing another Managing Committee. It is well-settled that If a statute confers power upon the authority to pass an order, that power includes a power exercisable In the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions, if any, to add. amend, vary or rescind. Tested on this touch stone of the legal position, it cannot be said that the respondent No. 1 had the power to pass the order dated 9th July, 1993 but lacked power to amend the same by the impugned order. The contention of the learned counsel in misconceived and cannot be sustained. ( 6 ) IN the result, the petition falls and is hereby dismissed summarily. .