ORDER K.S. Janjua, F.C. - This is an appeal under Section 68 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 against the award dated 23.12.1998 passed by the RCS, Punjab. 2. Brief facts of the case are that election to the Managing Committee of the Khanna Primary Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd., Khanna (hereinafter called the Bank) was held on 28.7.1998. All the three petitioners and respondents No. 2 to 4 were declared elected. A meeting of the Managing Committee was fixed for 25.8.1998 to discuss the agenda which included amongst other items, the election of its office-bearers and co-option of members. However, the Manager of the respondent-Bank on 17.8.1998 cancelled the meeting scheduled to be held on 25.8.1998 without giving any reasons for doing so. On 24.8.1998, respondent No. 2 through a petition moved before RCS against the cancellation of the meeting, RCS passed the following orders : "Presented. Heard. Meeting of the Managing Committee of the Khanna PADB as already fixed for 25.8.1998 must be held. Dasti notice. Petition is disposed of accordingly." Another petition was moved by Smt. Baljinder Kaur respondent No. 2 on the same day before RCS alleging that Piara Singhs election to the Managing Committee of the respondent-Bank was illegal. RCS on 24.8.1998 restrained Piara Singh, member of the Managing Committee from participating in the meeting of the Managing Committee of the Bank. On 25.8.1998 Piara Singh was informed about the orders of RCS restraining him from participation in the meeting itself. However, the meeting continued and Baldev Singh and Amar Singh were co-opted as Committee Members and Smt. Bajinder Kaur was elected as President. Piara Singh petitioner contested the restraint order of 24.8.1998 by filing an application for vacation of the restraint order and RCS vacated the stay on 27.8.1998. The petitioners filed a petition before RCS and sought declaration of the entire proceedings of the meeting of 25.8.1998 as illegal void and inoperative on the ground that the restraint order of 24.8.1998 had tilted the balance in favour of Smt. Baljinder Kaur and her group in the said meeting. After hearing the matter, the petition was also dismissed by RCS on 23.12.1998. Being not satisfied with the orders of RCS, the appellant filed this appeal in this Court. 3. After hearing the matter, the petition was also dismissed by RCS on 23.12.1998. Being not satisfied with the orders of RCS, the appellant filed this appeal in this Court. 3. The counsel for the petitioner argued before me that the meeting to be held on 25.8.1998 was cancelled on 17.8.1998 and another meeting for the same purpose was fixed for 7.9.1998. He argued that RCS has refused to intervene saying that restraint order was passed by himself. Therefore, he cannot hold the proceedings of 25.8.1998 as illegal. It was argued at the Bar that RCSs order (24.8.1998) was quasi-judicial order and he could have rectified any mistake committed in his interlocutory order. An ex parte stay order was granted regarding restraining Piara Singh petitioner from taking part in the meeting. Piara Singh, it was claimed, was restrained illegally. He did not know about the orders of RCS restraining him from participating in the meeting till he came to attend the meeting on 25.8.1998. 4. The counsel for the respondent argued that Manager had no authority to cancel the meeting called for election of office-bearers and co-option of members. Once a meeting is called/fixed, it cannot be cancelled. It was argued that such meetings can be postponed if there is some natural calamity or widespread law and order problem. The Manager had not given any reason for cancelling the meeting and fixing another date for the meeting. The order of the Manager on this point was illegal, arbitrary and purely subjective. He had no powers under Rule 80 of The Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, 1963 to postpone such meetings. The counsel for the respondent further argued that an election matter can only be challenged through an election petition which has to be decided after taking proper evidence. 5. I have evaluated arguments advanced by the parties. I am of the view that canceling the meeting which was to be held on 25.8.1998 was without proper authority and jurisdiction. Once an election meeting has been fixed, there should be no postponement. If at all, a postponement has to be resorted to, specific reasons have to be recorded. Manager has no authority to cancel the meeting already notified and fix another date. The Manager even went to extent of redefining the agenda. Once an election meeting has been fixed, there should be no postponement. If at all, a postponement has to be resorted to, specific reasons have to be recorded. Manager has no authority to cancel the meeting already notified and fix another date. The Manager even went to extent of redefining the agenda. The agenda for the meeting issued on 8.8.1998 relates to election of President, election of Vice President and co- option of members. The second notice issued on 17.8.1998 mentions only one item for consideration i.e. co-option of members. The conduct of Manager is not above suspicion. He was acting arbitrarily and without authority. I cannot help but pass strictures about misconduct of Nirmal Singh, the then Manager, PADB, Khanna. 6. The Registrars action for not allowing postponement and insisting that the meeting should be held on 25.8.1998 as already notified is on all fours and I commend him on that. The arbitrary act of Manager was undone by this timely order. 7. Keeping in view, the facts and circumstances of the case, I dismiss the petition. To be communicated. Petition dismissed.