BILAL NAZK1, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners are applicants for getting membership by transfer in the Jubilee Hills Co-operative House Building Society (hereinafter referred as the society ). They claim that they have purchased plots from the members of the society. The society was established about two decades before and it was permitting its members to transfer their membership and plots subject to the bye- laws of the society and it has been the practice that all such applications for transfer were being permitted after the approval of the Managing Committee of the Society in terms of bye-law 42. It is further submitted that, during the period 1994-96 the affairs of the society were being managed by a departmental Special Officer appointed by the Government to manage the affairs of the society. During this period also membership transfers were being permitted both in case of registered and unregistered plots. It is submitted that plot No. 627 belonging to smt. Sailaja an unregistered plot was transferred in favour of Kum. C Urmila reddy in June, 1996, the said transfer was in fact permitted pursuant to the instructions issued by the District Co-operative Officer to the Special Officer of the society vide his letter dated 4-6-1996. According to the petitioners, this letter specifically mentioned that in terms of bye-law No. 5 of the society there was no restriction for the transfer of membership. The letter further directed the Special Officer to permit the transfer in terms of bye-law 42 (m ). The special Officer approved the transfer on the instructions of the District Co-operative officer and the same was communicated to the transferee. Subsequently elections were held to the society and the present managing Committee started functioning from 11-7-96. Certain applications for transfer of membership were pending. In its meeting held on 30th November, 1996 the managing Committee decided to adopt a new procedure for granting approval to applications for transfer. It was decided that both the parties should sign and affix their respective thumb impressions before the office bearers and submit attested photographs. The society later addressed letters to the transferors requesting them to attend its office and comply with the formalities. In its meeting held on 18-1-1997 the Managing Committee approved transfers in seven cases pertaining to unregistered plots. It was decided that both the parties should sign and affix their respective thumb impressions before the office bearers and submit attested photographs. The society later addressed letters to the transferors requesting them to attend its office and comply with the formalities. In its meeting held on 18-1-1997 the Managing Committee approved transfers in seven cases pertaining to unregistered plots. On 28-2-1997 the Managing committee approved transfer of eight more cases but decided to issue the transfer letters after receiving a reply from the Deputy registrar (Housing ). On 15-3-1997 four more cases were decided by the committee. It was decided to take legal opinion with regard to transfer of unregistered plots in view of the letter of 2nd respondent dated 13-3-1997. It is stated that the 3rd respondent society has not issued transfer letters to the petitioners despite its resolutions dated 18-1-1997 and 28-2-1997. The petitioners made several futile representations but they were informed by the office bearers of the society that the Managing Committee was unable to permit transfers due to objection raised by the Co-operative Department officials. The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative societies, Hyderabad in his communication dated 13-3-1997 to the Secretary of the society directed the society not to permit transfer of unregistered plots as such transfers are resulting in loss of revenue to the Government. Subsequently the Additional Registrar of Co-operative societies issued certain directions on 6-5-1997. In the said communication the society was directed to bring about certain amendments to its bye-laws. One of the directions dealt with transfer of plots. The first respondent stated that large scale of transfers are taking place leading to gross misuse and trading in real estate. It is submitted that such transfers were being permitted for the past quite some time by the society. There have been no restrictions so far. The Managing committee was always permitting such transfers but now it is unable to allow such transfers. ( 2 ) IN these circumstances, the petitioners seek writ for the relief that the letter of 1st respondent Re. No. 3598/92-C dated 13-3-1997 and the letter of 2nd respondent Rc. No. 6-461/96-HSO (1), dated 6-5-1997 should be declared as illegal arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights. They also seek a direction to the Managing committee of the Jubilee Hills Co-operative house Building Society to effect transfers. No. 3598/92-C dated 13-3-1997 and the letter of 2nd respondent Rc. No. 6-461/96-HSO (1), dated 6-5-1997 should be declared as illegal arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights. They also seek a direction to the Managing committee of the Jubilee Hills Co-operative house Building Society to effect transfers. ( 3 ) NOW the only controversy is, whether the co-operative society can permit transfer of plots from one member to another member without even the earlier member having become owner of the property. The letters which have been challenged in this writ petition are letters dated 13-3-1997 and 6-5-1997. The letter dated 13-3-1997 reads as under ;"sub: HOUSING - Periodical inspection of jubliee Mills Co-op. House Building Society Ltd. , ta-173 for the half year ended 31 -12-1996 communicating the defects and calling for the rectification report-Reg. Ref: 1. Periodical inspection report for the half year ended 31-12-1996 of the CSR/ field dated 24-1-1997. 2. This office Lr. of even No. dated 25-1-1997. 3. Your letter No. JCS/1821/97, dated 4-2-1997. 4. This office Lr. of even No. dated 27-2-1997. Please refer to the subject and reference cited and inform that as it was pointed out by the Co-op. Sub-Registrar/field, it is evident that the society is effecting transfers of unregistered plots resulting in heavy revenue loss to the Government. In view of that Deputy Registrar (Housing), hyderabad hereby directs the society not to transfer unregistered plots, this should be implemented forthwith. "the second letter dated 6-5-1997 deals with many subjects and one of the subjects is transfer of plots in the names of the relatives. The directions with respect of this issue are:"the transfer of a plot from one member to another member be totally prohibited except by inheritance. If any member wants to transfer his plot within 15 years of allotment and possession, the society should have the first right of conveyance and reallot it to other members with seniority after refunding the amount to the original allottee along with interest and with the prior approval of the designated officer of the Co-operative Department to whom powers have been delegated to permit such transfer. No member shall be allowed to transfer his plot without the concurrence of the managing Committee and also without registering of the sale/transfer deed. The society is further directed to amend the bye- law as follows. . . . . . . No member shall be allowed to transfer his plot without the concurrence of the managing Committee and also without registering of the sale/transfer deed. The society is further directed to amend the bye- law as follows. . . . . . . "it is submitted that, this order of 6-5-1997 has been challenged in a writ petition by the society itself being WP No. 22022/98. This writ petition was disposed of in terms of orders passed in an earlier writ petition being wpno. 24729 of 1998. ( 4 ) THE petitioners rely on bye-law 42 (m) of the society which lays down :" (M) No person to whom a plot has been allotted shall alienate the same with or without construction thereon, to a member or any other person without the prior approval of the Managing Committee of the Society. "it is their case that the Managing Committee has already granted approvals therefore by virtue of the orders passed by the respondents the transfers with respect to petitioners could not be withheld. ( 5 ) TWO important questions arise in the circumstances of the case : (1) Whether the bye-laws of the society can be enforced by this Court, and (2) What would be the effect of the directions issued by the government even if the directions are contrary to the bye-laws. ( 6 ) THE first question has already been decided by a Full Bench of this Court in sri Konaseema Co-op. Central Bank Ltd. v. N. Seetharama Raju, AIR 1990 AP 171 . The Court has held that the societies can be compelled to follow its bye-laws to ensure fair and equal treatment which is the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. Para-25 of the judgment is reproduced :"25. For the above reasons, we hold that the bye-laws of a co-operative society governed by the A. P. Co-operative Society Act, do not have the force of law, as held by the Supreme court in Co-operative Central Bank. This is so even where the society which made them is characterized as a state within the meaning of Article 12. This does not however mean that, where a particular cooperative society can be characterized as a state , it is not bound to follow those bye laws. This is so even where the society which made them is characterized as a state within the meaning of Article 12. This does not however mean that, where a particular cooperative society can be characterized as a state , it is not bound to follow those bye laws. We have already indicated hereinbefore that such society must follow its bye-laws, and it would be compelled to follow such bye-laws by way of a writ petition, so as to ensure fair and equal treatment the mandate of Article 14. " ( 7 ) COMING to the second question, under the A. P. Co-operative Societies Act the Registrar has the power to give directions as may be necessary from time to time in the interest of the Co-operative movement of the public interest or in order to prevent the affairs of the society from being conducted in a manner detrimental to the interests of the members or of the depositors or creditors thereof. Under Section 4 (2) of the A. P. Co-operative Societies Act it is also made obligatory for the societies to comply with such directions. There is not a single provision in the Act which would show that if the directions of the Registrar are contrary to the bye-laws they shall not be given effect to. Even under the bye-law 42 (m) no person who was allotted a plot gets a right to transfer or alienate the plot so allotted to a member or any other person. It only states that such alienation or transfer shall take place with the prior approval of the Managing Committee of the society. So. if the Managing Committee exercises its power this has to be exercised subject to orders of the Registrar under Section 4 (2) of the A. P. Co-operative Societies Act and if the Registrar prohibits such transfers no benefit can be derived from bye-law 42 (m ). ( 8 ) THE respondents have contended in their counter that the present writ petitioners are not at all members of the society. They have categorically stated that there is no communication issued to the petitioners showing them to be members of the society. They are not shown in the admission register as the members. Unless the petitioners are admitted as members into the society they cannot enforce any right or interest vis-a-vis the society. They have categorically stated that there is no communication issued to the petitioners showing them to be members of the society. They are not shown in the admission register as the members. Unless the petitioners are admitted as members into the society they cannot enforce any right or interest vis-a-vis the society. The membership is dealt within bye-law No. 6 and 6 (c) lays down that every person shall be deemed to have been admitted as a member if his name is entered in the admissions register by the Secretary of the society within 30 days from the date of resolution passed by the competent authority. Therefore, it follows that unless a person s name is in the regester of members he cannot claim to be member of the society. Therefore, seeing this ease from any angle the bye-law 42 (m) cannot be enforced by this Court on the motion of the petitioners. Even otherwise this bye- law as has been stated here inabove is subject to the directions of the Registrar under Section 4 (2) of the A. P. Co-operative societies Act. This is further made clear by section 27 of the A. P. Co-operative Societies act which lays down :"27. Restrictions on transfer of shares or interest :- (1) No transfer by a member of his share or interest in a society shall be valid unless; (a) the member has held such share or interest for not less than one co-operative year. (b) The transfer is made to a member of the society. (2) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1), no member of financing bank or a federal society shall transfer his share or interest in such bank or society to an individual member, his heir or legal representative. "sub-section (1) (b) of Section 27 makes it clear that a transfer made by a member of his share or interest in a society shall be invalid unless the transfer is made to the member of the society. Therefore, even if resolutions were passed by the co-operative society favouring a transfer they were invalid by virtue of Section 27 (1) (b) as the transfer from one member to a non- member is invalid. Since the petitioners admittedly have not become members of the society, even if any resolution for transfer was made by the co-operative society that was invalid and illegal. Since the petitioners admittedly have not become members of the society, even if any resolution for transfer was made by the co-operative society that was invalid and illegal. Therefore, there cannot be any question of retrospective or prospective operation of the orders of the Registrar. It was contended that this Court while passing the interim orders had dealt with the matter and had expressed an opinion whether the orders passed by the Registrar would have prospective or retrospective operation. This question docs not at all arise because even if these orders are implemented prospectively even then the petitioners do not have any case because the resolutions on which they claim the right to transfer have been passed in violation of Section 27 of the A. P. Co-operative Societies Act. Rule 42 of the Rules framed under the Act further makes it clear as to how a transaction with non-members can be made. Rule 42 lays down :"42. Transactions with non-members :-No society shall enter into any transaction with a person other than a member unless :- (a) the bye-laws of the society permit it to enter into such transaction, and (b) the previous sanction of the Registrar has been obtained by the society for the entering into such transaction. "although we have our own doubts whether rule 42 (a) is a valid rule or not because it is in conflict with Section 27 of the Act, but even if it is held to be valid even then in order to have a valid transaction between a member and a non-member there are two requirements (1) bye-laws of the society should permit it, and (2) the previous sanction of the Registrar should be obtained for entering into such transaction. Admittedly no previous sanction of the Registrar was obtained when the resolutions permitting transfers were made by the society. There is no ground stated in the writ petition on which the Court could come to a conclusion that the impugned orders were arbitrary and unconstitutional. ( 9 ) FOR these reasons, we do not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.