( 1 ) THE petitioner 1 being the President and the petitioners 2 to 9 being the Directors of the respondent 3 -- Society had filed the instant writ petition with the prayer for quashing the notice dated 25-9-1998 in No. DRY:adm:l970:xnn:98-99 copy at Annexure-H to the writ petition issued by the respondent 1. ( 2 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri Deshra. Respondents 1 and 2 are represented by the Additional Government Advocate Sri M. N. Ramanjaneya Gowda. Respondent 3 having been served with the notice had remained absent before the Court. ( 3 ) IN the instant case in hand, the petitioners had challenged the impugned notice copy at annexure-H to the writ petition on the ground that the respondent 1 as well as respondent 2 have got no authority to issue the same. By issuing the impugned notice, the respondent 1 called upon the petitioners herein to show cause within 15 days from the date of service of that notice as to why their Society-respondent 3 be not superseded under sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the co-operative Societies Act. It further called upon them therein to show cause as to why the administrator be not appointed to their Society. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri Deshraj vehemently argued that it was totally without the authority under law, the respondent 2 had issued the show-cause notice, for according to him, as per sub-section (1) of Section 39-A of the Co-operative Societies Act the election of first committee of the Co-operative Societies after its registration need not be held under the superintendence, direction or control of the Registrar and further that as per the second proviso below the explanation to sub-section (4) of Section 28-A of the Co-operative Societies act, a general body meeting of the Society after the registration had to be held within one month from the date of registration to elect the first committee to manage the affairs of the Society and it is thus, according to Sri Deshraj, the petitioners held the first meeting on 20-8-1998 and that upon raising some objection by the authorities the meeting fixed to be held on 20-8-1998 was adjourned to 27-8-1998 and therefore the adjourned general body meeting was held without there being a notice. Therefore, the submission of Sri Deshraj was that the impugned notice termed as a show-cause notice was totally without authority of law. ( 5 ) SRI Deshraj had also cited before me two decisions in support of his argument. The first decision is the one in Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v Ramesh Kumar Singh and Others , wherein the Supreme Court held that when the show-cause notice was without jurisdiction, the same was very much available for a party to challenge the same by invoking article 226 of the Constitution. The other decision Sri Deshraj cited before me is the one in hemavathi Mahila Co-operative Bank Limited v State of Karnataka and Others. In the said decision, point at controversy was as to whether the Joint Registrar had power to issue direction to the Chief Promoter to include the names of certain persons in the list of persons contributed towards initial share capital and in that decision the learned Single Judge of this Court held that such a direction was without any jurisdiction and as such amenable to a challenge in a writ petition. ( 6 ) HENCE Sri Deshraj prayed that the impugned show-cause notice be quashed. ( 7 ) THE learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 on the other side argued that when the Society was not convened to hold the general body in accordance with the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, Rules and the Bye-laws of the Society, it was very much permissible for the respondent 2 in the instant case in hand to issue the impugned show-cause notice by calling upon the petitioner-Society firstly to show cause, first as to why it be not superseded and secondly, as to why in the place of elected committee an administrator be not appointed. The learned Government Advocate tried to sustain his argument by placing reliance on Section 30 (1) (b) of the Co-operative Societies Act. It was also argued by him that in the instant case in hand the petitioners when convened the general body meeting to meet on 20-8-1998, it did not cause for issuance of notices to all its members and that, it is for that reason the respondent 2 had intervened to give a direction to the Chief Promoter at the first instance to convene the meeting by issuing the notices to all the members of the Society. While referring to the resolution dated 20-8-1998 copy at Annexure-E to writ petition, Sri M. N. Ramanjaneya gowda pointed out that even to convene the adjourned meeting the petitioners did not cause for issuance of notices to the members. Therefore, according to him, it was a meeting illegally convened and on appreciation of that situation, the respondent 2 had issued the impugned show-cause notice. It was further argued by him that even in issuance of the impugned notice by the respondent 2 it was issued only to call upon the petitioner-Society managed by the illegally elected committee to show cause as to why the two proposed actions against them not be taken. To elaborate in this regard, the learned Government Advocate further pointed out that it was very much available for the petitioners to show causes to the said notice and that the petitioners instead of doing that had resorted the instant writ petition. Therefore he prayed that the instant writ petition be dismissed. 7-A. In the light of the above submissions made, I have carefully gone through the provisions in sections 28-A, 30 and 39a of the Co-operative Societies Act. As argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, 1 see that when the first general body is convened (after the registration of the society) to elect the first committee of the Co-operative Society, the same be not under the superintendence, direction and control of the Registrar as provided for under Section 39a of the act. Further under the second proviso below the explanation to sub-section (4) of Section 28-A, a general meeting of the Society for the purpose of the election of the first committee has to be convened within one month from the date of registration of the Society. ( 8 ) IN the instant case, as I see, the Chief Promoter, non-party hereto had convened the meeting on 20-8-1998 and when the respondent 2 had raised certain objections, the Chief Promoter did concede to the said objection and adjourned the meeting to be held on 27-8-1998. ( 8 ) IN the instant case, as I see, the Chief Promoter, non-party hereto had convened the meeting on 20-8-1998 and when the respondent 2 had raised certain objections, the Chief Promoter did concede to the said objection and adjourned the meeting to be held on 27-8-1998. The learned government Advocate during the course of his argument submitted that the meeting convened by the Chief Promoter was not by issuing notices to all the members and that therefore the same was totally vitiated the very proceedings in which the petitioners herein came to be elected and that therefore the respondent 2 had issued the show-cause notice under Section 30 (1) of the co-operative Societies Act. I tried to. reconcile the provisions under Sections 28-A, 30 and 39a of the Co-operative Societies Act and in that exercise I find that the proviso in Section 30 in the matter of supersession of the committee has no role to play in the matter of convening of the first general body for the purpose of election of the committee members by the Society after its registration, for the law is clear under Section 39-A that the authorities did not get authority of superintendence, direction or control of the Society. If respondent 1 being the Registrar to the respondent 3-Society did not get the authority of superintendence, direction and control in the matter of convening the first general body to hold the election for the purpose of electing the first committee of the Society after its registration, I do not think that the Registrar could fall back upon section 39 (1) (b) of the Co-operative Societies Act for the purpose of issuance of the impugned notice. Therefore, I am of the considered view that, the impugned show-cause notice by respondent 2 was without jurisdiction. 8-A. The learned Government Advocate also argued that in passing the impugned notice, the authorities had called upon the petitioners to show cause as against the proposed actions by the registrar and that it was up to the petitioners to show causes to the respondent 2 instead of resorting the instant writ petition. Answer to the point of the learned Government Advocate is found in the decision of the Supreme Court in Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board's case, supra, aptly relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Answer to the point of the learned Government Advocate is found in the decision of the Supreme Court in Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board's case, supra, aptly relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. In the said decision, the Supreme Court held that, when the show-cause notice was without jurisdiction, a remedy will be available to a party to challenge the same under Article 226 of the constitution of India. ( 9 ) SIMILAR was the view of the Supreme Court in an earlier decision in Carl Still G. m. b. H. and another v State of Bihar and Others, of course in different set of facts and situation. In this context, the Division Bench ruling of this Court in Puttaswamaiah v Deputy Registrar of co-operative Societies and Another , beneficially be referred to. ( 10 ) THAT being the position, I find every merit in the instant writ petition. ( 11 ) YET another aspect of the case I should not miss to advert to in this context. If it is true that there were irregularities in the matter of convening the general body immediately after registration of the Society by the Chief Promoter and further in the matter of holding the election to elect the first committee to the petitioner-Society, it was very much available for the aggrieved parties to resort to dispute under Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act and that being so, I do not think that the respondent 2 got any role to play even if there were any irregularities both in the matter of convening the general body immediately after its registration as well as in the matter of holding the election to elect the first committee of management. If it is otherwise, as argued by Sri Deshraj at one stage, for every irregularity in the matter of holding the election, the registrar can as well intervene to supersede the very Society and further appoint an administrator as the respondent 1 proposed to do in the instant case in hand in issuing the impugned show-cause notice. ( 12 ) THE learned Government Advocate had also failed to demonstrate as to whether any dispute had been raised by any of the parties aggrieved by the action of the Chief Promoter in convening the general body as well as the holding of the election. ( 12 ) THE learned Government Advocate had also failed to demonstrate as to whether any dispute had been raised by any of the parties aggrieved by the action of the Chief Promoter in convening the general body as well as the holding of the election. ( 13 ) THEREFORE, I pass the following:-The impugned show-cause notice dated 25-9-1998 in case No. DRY:adm:1970:xnn:98-99 issued by respondent 2-Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, copy at Annexure-H to writ petition is quashed. The writ petition, therefore succeeds and stands allowed. Rule issued earlier made absolute. No costs.