Order.- The above reference is made by the Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, for setting aside the order passed by the First-Class Magistrate, Chitradurga, in Criminal Micellaneous No. 73 of 1967 issuing a search warrant to seize the records of the Society in question and the subsequent order, dated 28th July, 1967 directing the P.S.I., Hosadurga to hand over the properties found in the premises to the petitioners before him. Mr. A.B. Mariappa appearing for respondents 2 to 13 and the State Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Mysore have not supported the referrence For the reasons to be hereinafter given, the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is not valid in law and the reference deserves to be rejected. The facts leading to the reference are: that 13 respondents in the above reference were petitioners in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 73 of 1967 on the file of the First-Class Magistrate, Chitradurga. They claimed that they were newly constituted committee of Directors of Banashankari Cotton Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society, Ltd., Bagur, to be hereinafter called the Society’ and requested the Court to issue warrant authorising the P.S.I., Hosadurga, exercising its powers under section 31 (2) of the Mysore Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, to be hereinafter called the ‘Act’ to search the records and properties that were with the past President and Secretary of the said Society and to seize them and hand over them to the petitioners. The Court granted the request of the petitioners and issued a search warrant on 23rd June 1967 directing the P.S.I, of Hosadurga to enter the Society buildings and to search the records of the Society and to seize them and produce them before the Court. Subsequently, the Sub-Inspector was authorised to break open the lock for effecting the search. The P.S.I, who executed the order of the Court reported that he could not trace any documents, but he found some powerlooms fixed in the ground along with the motor belonging to the Society. Thereafter the Court passed an order on 28th July, 1967 directing the P.S.I, to hand over the properties found in the premises to the 13 petitioners. Thus, he disposed of the petition. The 1st respondent, who was the petitioner before the Sessions Court being aggrieved by the said order filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge. Thereafter the Court passed an order on 28th July, 1967 directing the P.S.I, to hand over the properties found in the premises to the 13 petitioners. Thus, he disposed of the petition. The 1st respondent, who was the petitioner before the Sessions Court being aggrieved by the said order filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties and relying upon the decision of this Court in Cubbonpet Silk, Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Ltd. v.. D.T. Govindarajalu1, came to the conclusion that since the respondent had questioned the validity of the election and the said matter was still pending enquiry before the Appellate Tribunal, the learned Magistrate could not have taken action under section 31 (2) of the Act. He bases his conclusion on the fact that there was an election dispute questioning the validity of the election pending before the Appellate Tribunal. The learned Sessions Judge is therefore of the view that the order of the learned Magistrate issuing search warrant and taking further steps to hand over the properties to the petitioners are liable to be set aside. Hence, he has made the present reference. Mr. A.B. Mariappa, learned Advocate for respondents 2 to 13 raised the preliminary objection with regard to the competence of the reference as also the maintainability of the revision petition before the Sessions Judge. He urged that under section 31 (2) of the Act, the First Glass Magistrate of Chitradurga exercises only executive functions and that he does not act in a judicial capacity and that at any rate it was not as a Court that the exercised the jurisdiction but as a persona disignata. The learned State Public Prosecutor while supporting the contention raised by Mr. Mariappa contended that action of Courts is barred under section 113 (3) of the Act. He relies upon the decision of this Court cited above and urges that the order passed under section 31 (2) of the Act is of an executive character and that no revision lies. There is merit in both the contentions advanced on behalf of the State and the respondents. He relies upon the decision of this Court cited above and urges that the order passed under section 31 (2) of the Act is of an executive character and that no revision lies. There is merit in both the contentions advanced on behalf of the State and the respondents. This Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, when the legality of the order passed by the City Magistrate, Bangalore, under section 31 (2) of the Act was questioned, has held as follows: “Before the Magistrate can take action under section 31 (2) and direct the old committee to hand, over records of the Society to the reconstituted committee, there must be a reconstituted committee. Where there is a dispute between the parties whether there is a reconstituted committee and that dispute is pending before an arbitrator, the Magistrate cannot take any action under section 31 (2). The power given to the Magistrate is in the nature of an execution proceeding and he is not competent to go into the dispute as to the existence of the reconstituted committee.” It is clear from the above decision that the power exercised by the Magistrate is in the nature of an execution proceeding. It is relevant to quote the following observation in the same, decision: “It may be noted that under section 31 (2) not even notice to the members of the past committee is contemplated. All that that section says is that wherever there is a reconstituted committee, if the old committee refused to or fails to hand over the records, the Magistrate may secure the records in question and hand them over to the reconstituted committee.” This observation makes it clear that the order passed by the Magistrate under section 31 (2) is not a judicial order but it is of an executive nature. No doubt, the said decision lays down the law that if it is brought to the notice of the Magistrate that there is a dispute pending before the authorities lawfully constituted as to the existence of a validly reconstituted committee, the Magistrate cannot tale action under section 31 (2) of the Act. The learned Sessions Judge has been guided away by this portion of the judgment. The learned Sessions Judge has been guided away by this portion of the judgment. But, it is clear from the reference mad; by the learned Sessions Judge that the fact that there Was a dispute pending before the authorities on the existence of a validly reconstituted committee had not been brought to the notice of the Magistrate at the time the order was passed under section 31 (2) of the Act. It is in the absence of any such fact being brought to the notice of the Magistrate, such an order for seizure and production which is purely in the nature of an executive proceeding has been passed. The Magistrate acting under section 31 (2) of the Act is a persona designata carrying out. ministerial duty. He does not act as an inferior Criminal Court in discharging his duties under that section. Hence Revision against his order passed under the said section does not lie. Therefore, the Revision filed before the Sessions Judge is not maintainable. The above view is supported from the provisions of section 118 (3) of the Act which reads as under: “Save as provided in this Act, no order, decision or award made under this Act shall be questioned in any Court on any ground whatsoever.” The Legislature in its wisdom thought it fit to provide under section 118 (3) of the Act that no order, decision or award made under this Act shall be questioned in any Court on any ground whatsover. An order passed under section 31 (2) of the Act is clearly an order passed under the Act. Therefore, section 31 (2) read with section 118 (3) of the Act clearly bars a Revision against the order passed by the Magistrate under section 31 (2) of the Act. For the reasons stated above, the Reference is not competent and the same is rejected. S.V.S. ----- Reference rejected.