R. RAMANUJAM, J. ( 1 ) JUDGMENT both these writ petitions arise out of an order made by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, City Circle, Hyderabad, in Rc. No. 7290/99-B, dated 27. 4. 2000. Hence, they are disposed of by this common order. ( 2 ) MANIKANTA Co-opretaive Urban Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank") is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the A. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short "the Act" ). A licence was also granted to the Bank under Section 22 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 by the Reserve Bank of India. There are about 15 Directors in the Managing Committee of the Bank. The four petitioners in Writ Petition No. 9090 of 2000 were some such Directors (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioners" ). Their case is that the Bank was not allowing them in the meetings of the Board of Directors on the ground that they were either disqualified or tendered their resignations, which were stated to have been accepted by the Bank. Then the petitioners and some other similarly situated Directors made a representation to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 30. 3. 2000. Considering that representation, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued an order in her proceedings Rc. No. 7290/99-B, dated 27. 4. 2000 declaring that the disqualification procedure adopted by the Bank is not valid. Since major part of the controversy revolves round the said order, it is appropriate to extract the same hereunder in toto: "government OF ANDHRA pradesh CO-OPERATIVE department from smt. V. Sumitra, Deputy Registrar of Co-op. Societies, City Circle, Hyderabad. To the Chairman, Manikanta Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. , Hyderabad. Rc. No. 7290/99-B, dated 27. 4. 2000. Sir, sub: CUBs - The Manikanta Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd. , Hyderabad - Resignation and Disqualification of some of the Directors -Certain instructions - Issued- Regarding. Ref: 1. R. C. S. Memo. Rc. No. 38639/99-UB-I, dated 11. 4. 2000. 2. Representation submitted by some of the Directors dated 30. 3. 2000. ( 3 ) YOUR Lr. addressed to this office on various dates. ( 4 ) FIELD CSR O/o. the D. R. C. C. , dated 3. 4. 2000. Vide your letter dated 6. 10. 1999 you have disqualified Sri S. Ramesh, Director and Sri P. J. R. Rao, Director. Vide your letter dated 4. 12. 3. 2000. ( 3 ) YOUR Lr. addressed to this office on various dates. ( 4 ) FIELD CSR O/o. the D. R. C. C. , dated 3. 4. 2000. Vide your letter dated 6. 10. 1999 you have disqualified Sri S. Ramesh, Director and Sri P. J. R. Rao, Director. Vide your letter dated 4. 12. 1999 you have disqualified Sri S. Ramesh and Sri S. Pandari, both Directors. Vide your letter dated 27. 12. 1999 the Board has accepted the resignation of Mr. P. N. Ramesh Kumar, Director. Vide your letter dated 10. 12. 1999 the Board has resolved to accept the resignation letter of Sri T. S. R. Anjaneyulu, Director. Vide letter dated 31. 3. 2000 you have disqualified Sri Gangam Ravi, Dr. K. Ramakrishna, Director and Sri K. Sunder, Director, as they were stood surety to the defaulters. Vide their letters dated 28. 12. 1999 and 31. 3. 2000 and various other individual complaints filed by these Directors on various dates prior to the complaint dated 31. 3. 2000. 1. Sri T. S. R. Anjaneyulu. 2. Sri K. Sunder. 3. Sri Dr. Ramakrishna. 4. Sri Gangam Ravi. ( 5 ) SRI S. Ramesh. ( 6 ) SRI P. N. Ramesh Kumar. ( 7 ) SRI Sreeram Pandari. (All Directors) the above mentioned Board of Directors have complained in brief that the Chairman is not conducting the Board Meetings regularly and also he is not informing them whenever the Board Meetings are called for. They have also complained that none of them have resigned from the Directorship of Board of Manikanta Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd. , and they were disqualified from the Board on false grounds. The Field Co-op. Sub-Registrar vide his report dated 3. 4. 2000 stated that the Chief Executive Officer of the Bank has refused to show the books of accounts and minutes book to him. He also informed that the Board meeting scheduled to be conducted on 31. 3. 2000 at 6. 30. p. m. , was not conducted and no proper reasons were given. He also recommended for conducting of periodical inspection of the Bank. On perusal of the minutes book by the Deputy Registrar, City Circle on 18. 4. 2000 it is found that New Directors were co-opted in the place of the disqualified Directors by the Bank without following proper procedure. He also recommended for conducting of periodical inspection of the Bank. On perusal of the minutes book by the Deputy Registrar, City Circle on 18. 4. 2000 it is found that New Directors were co-opted in the place of the disqualified Directors by the Bank without following proper procedure. The legal position is as per A. P. C. S. Rule 23-AAA. notwithstanding anything in the bye-law of the society, any member or members of the society including the President may resign his seat by sending letter of resignation by registered post or by tendering it in person to the Registrar and such a resignation shall take effect from the date it is accepted by the Registrar. as per Section 21 (A) read with Rule 24 (3): the disqualification procedure adopted by the Bank is found to be illegal and in the light of the above position the consequent co-option of some of the Directors is also not valid. Since the above mentioned Board of Directors have complained that they have not resigned and the disqualifications were done on false grounds, the matter needs to be required further. Until such time, i. e. , the Deputy Registrar of Co-op. Societies, City Circle, verifies the originality of the resignations and validity of disqualifications, the Board of Directors who were elected originally will continue to be on the Board of the Bank. And the Chairman is hereby directed to intimate the Agenda Notices and call those Board of Directors to the meetings who were elected to the Board till the matter is decided at this level. Any violation of the above lawful direction, action will be initiated under Section 34 of A. P. C. S. Act, 1964. Yours faithfully, Deputy Registrar". 3. Against the aforesaid order, the Bank filed an appeal in CTA No. 153 of 2000 before the Co-operative Tribunal, Hyderabad. In that appeal, the Bank also filed IA No. 401 of 2000 seeking interim suspension of the aforesaid order dated 27. 4. 2000 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. On 4. 5. 2000 the Co-operative Tribunal dismissed that application holding that the order passed by the Deputy Registrar on 27. 4. 2000 is not an appealable order under Section 76 of the Act and, if at all, the Bank is aggrieved by that order, it has to file a revision under Section 77 of the Act. On 4. 5. 2000 the Co-operative Tribunal dismissed that application holding that the order passed by the Deputy Registrar on 27. 4. 2000 is not an appealable order under Section 76 of the Act and, if at all, the Bank is aggrieved by that order, it has to file a revision under Section 77 of the Act. Thereupon, the Bank filed Revision Petition No. 1648 of 2000-UB/1-2000-UB-RP before the Joint Registrar/district Co-operative Officer, Hyderabad Urban District (hereinafter referred to as "the 1st respondent" as is shown in Writ Petition No. 9090 of 2000) challenging the aforesaid order of the Dy. Registrar of Co-operative Societies. On 12. 5. 2000 the 1st respondent made the following interim order: "there shall be an interim suspension of the order of the respondent issued vide letter Rc. No. 7290/99-B, dated 27. 4. 2000. However, the individuals namely K. Sunder, Dr. Ramakrishna and Sri Gangam Ravi who are alleged to be facing disqualification for having stood as sureties to certain defaulters shall continue to be Directors pending enquiry under Rule 24 (3) of Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules of 1964 by the respondent". 4. It may be noted here that the Bank has even not made the petitioners as parties to the said revision petition. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the 1st respondent, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 9090 of 2000 seeking for a writ of mandamus declaring that the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision and consequently declaring the order passed by him on 12. 5. 2000 is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. 5. While admitting that writ petition, this Court on 23. 5. 2000 granted interim suspension of the aforesaid order of the 1st respondent till 14. 6. 2000 in WP MP No. 11677 of 2000. Thereafter, that interim order lapsed. 6. In the meanwhile, on 5. 6. 2000 the Bank filed Writ Petition No. 9551 of 2000 seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent dated 4. 5. 2000 in IA No. 401 of 2000 in CTA No. 153 of 2000 and quashing the same. In that writ petition, the Bank also prayed for interim suspension of the order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 27. 4. 2000, which was already suspended at its instance on 12. 5. 2000 in the revision filed by it before the 1st respondent. In that writ petition, the Bank also prayed for interim suspension of the order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 27. 4. 2000, which was already suspended at its instance on 12. 5. 2000 in the revision filed by it before the 1st respondent. This Court while admitting that writ petition granted interim suspension on 8. 6. 2000 initially for a period of four weeks. Subsequently, this Court by order dated 14. 8. 2000 continued the said interim order, pending consideration of the vacate stay petition - WV MP No. 1342 of 2000 - filed by the petitioners. On 31. 8. 2000 these two writ petitions were directed to be posted for final hearing. 7. Now I shall first take up Writ Petition No. 9551 of 2000 for consideration. ( 8 ) IT has to be noted here that Sri C. V. Mohan Reddy appeared for the Bank and argued the matter at length. Thereafter the matter was adjourned at the request of the Bank and then Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel, appeared for the Bank. ( 9 ) HAVING heard their arguments and the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, I am of the considered view that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed, at the very threshold, on the ground of maintainability. ( 10 ) AS already noted, the Co-operative Tribunal, Hyderabad, by its order dated 4. 5. 2000 passed in IA No. 401 of 2000 in CTA No. 153 of 2000, refused to suspend the operation of the order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 27. 4. 2000 on the ground that it is not an appealable order falling under Section 76 of the Act. At that stage, it was open to the Bank to approach this Court by filing a writ petition against that order. It did not do so. Instead, the Bank approached the Joint Registrar/district Co-operative Officer, Hyderabad Urban District and filed a Revision Petition No. l648/2000-UB/1/2000-UB-RP impugning the validity of the order passed by the Dy. Registrar of Co-operative Societies dated 27. 4. 2000 and also obtained interim suspension of that order on 12. 5. 2000. It did not do so. Instead, the Bank approached the Joint Registrar/district Co-operative Officer, Hyderabad Urban District and filed a Revision Petition No. l648/2000-UB/1/2000-UB-RP impugning the validity of the order passed by the Dy. Registrar of Co-operative Societies dated 27. 4. 2000 and also obtained interim suspension of that order on 12. 5. 2000. ( 11 ) HAVING thus filed a revision under Section 77 of the Act before the 1st respondent, as observed by the Tribunal, it was no longer open to the Bank to pursue the appeal filed by it against the very same order before the Tribunal. It was not, therefore, open to the Bank to file this writ petition challenging the order made by the Tribunal in IA No. 401 of 2000 in CTA No. 153 of 2000. Yet, the Bank filed the present writ petition challenging the order of the Tribunal. Thus, in effect, the Bank seeks to pursue both the revision as well as the appeal. This is nothing but abuse of the process of the Court. On this ground, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs and in fact I would have done so, but for the fact that the learned senior Counsel Sri E. Manohar, made a clean breast of it and stated, with his usual fairness, that the Bank ought not to have filed this writ petition. It is for this reason, the Bank is not mulcted with exemplary costs. ( 12 ) WRIT Petition No. 9551 of 2000 is, therefore, dismissed with costs. ( 13 ) NOW I shall take up for consideration Writ Petition No. 9090 of 2000 filed by the petitioners. ( 14 ) SRI G. Vidya Sagar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, contended that the order of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies dated 27-4-2000 is referable to Rule 23-AAA of the A. P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964 (for short "the Rules"), and since the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies was also appointed as a Registrar for the purpose of the said Rule and certain other provisions of the Act by the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 34, Food and Agriculture (Co-op. IV) Department, dated 16-1-1989, revision against such an order can only be made to the Government, but not to the 1st respondent. No. 34, Food and Agriculture (Co-op. IV) Department, dated 16-1-1989, revision against such an order can only be made to the Government, but not to the 1st respondent. Alternatively it was contended that the petitioners are necessary parties to the revision petition and in their absence no order affecting their rights could be passed by the revisional authority in view of the mandatory provision contained under Section 77 (2) of the Act. Yet the 1st respondent passed the impugned order without giving such an opportunity to them and, hence, the impugned order is null and void. ( 15 ) ON the other hand, the learned senior Counsel, Sri E. Manohar, contended on behalf of the Bank, that the directions given by the DeDeputy Registrar of cooperative Societies by her order dated 27-4-2000 are not referable to those provisions of the Act, for the purpose of which she was appointed as a Registrar under G. O. Ms. No. 34, dated 16-1-1989 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the order dated 27-4-2000 was passed by the Deputy Registrar in her capacity as a Registrar, hence, that order can be questioned in revision before the 1st respondent. On the alternative submission of the petitioners Counsel, it was submitted by the learned senior Counsel that sub-section (3) of Section 77 of the Act clearly authorises the revisional authority to grant ex parte interim order. ( 16 ) BEFORE I proceed further, it should be recorded here that Sri G. Vidyasagar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, having realised that a decision of this Court, either way, on the first contention advanced by him may ultimately affect the result of the revision pending before the 1st respondent, stated that he is not pressing the said contention any further. ( 17 ) THEREFORE, what remains for consideration is his alternative submission that the impugned interim order passed by the 1st respondent on 12-5-2000 is unsustainable inasmuch as it is in violation of sub-section (2) of Section 77 of the Act. ( 18 ) FOR a better appreciation of this contention, it is appropriate to extract here Section 77 of the Act, which reads thus:"77. ( 18 ) FOR a better appreciation of this contention, it is appropriate to extract here Section 77 of the Act, which reads thus:"77. Revision : (1) The Registrar may of his own motion or on application made to him, call for and examine the record of any officer subordinate to him and the Government may of their own motion or on application made to them, call for and examine the record of the Registrar, in respect of any proceeding not being a proceeding in respect of which an appeal to the Tribunal is provided by sub-section (1) of Section 76 to satisfy himself or themselves as to the regularity of such proceedings or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision passed or order made therein; and if, in any case, it appears to the Registrar or the Government that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled, reserved or remitted for reconsideration, he or they may pass orders accordingly: provided that every application to the Registrar or the Government for the exercise of the powers under this section shall be preferred within ninety days from the date on which the proceeding, decision or order to which the application relates was communicated to the applicant. (2) No order prejudicial to any person shall be passed under sub-section (1) unless such person has been given an opportunity of making his representation. (3) The Registrar or the Government, as the case may be, may suspend the decision or order pending the exercise of his or their power under sub-section (1) in respect thereof. (4 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "a close and conjoint reading of the said three sub-Sections makes it clear that sub-section (1) authorises the revisional authority to make final orders in the revision application, whereas sub-section (3) provides for grant of interim orders by the revisional authority. Sub-section (2) clearly mandates that a final order under sub-section (1) should not be made without giving an opportunity to the affected person. But, this embargo will not apply in the case of interim orders under sub-section (3 ). In other words, sub- section (3) specifically provides for grant of ex parte interim orders, whenever such a need arises. Sub-section (2) clearly mandates that a final order under sub-section (1) should not be made without giving an opportunity to the affected person. But, this embargo will not apply in the case of interim orders under sub-section (3 ). In other words, sub- section (3) specifically provides for grant of ex parte interim orders, whenever such a need arises. It must be noted here that the power to grant ex parte interim orders, wherever the situation so demands, is inherent in any quasi judicial authority, for without such power justice cannot be done. The Legislature in this case made that implied power explicit by enacting sub-section (3) and by not making it subordinate to subsection (2 ). ( 19 ) IT is, therefore, idle to contend that even an interim order, like the impugned order, cannot be granted by the 1st respondent-Revisional Authority without giving an opportunity to the petitioners. In this view of the matter, the alternative submission of the petitioners Counsel cannot be sustained. However, it must be stated here that final order in the revision cannot be made without giving an opportunity to the petitioners. Since the matter is of urgent nature, it is expedient for the 1st respondent-Revisional Authority to dispose of the revision at an early date. ( 20 ) FOR the aforementioned reasons, I consider it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition directing the 1st respondent to issue notice to the petitioners herein in Revision No. 1648/2000-UB and dispose of the same after giving them an opportunity of being heard, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the Bank shall not take any major policy decisions. ( 21 ) WRIT Petition No. 9090 of 2000 is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.