JUDGMENT R.S. Mongia, J. (Oral) - The point in this petition for consideration is as to whether the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies had the power and jurisdiction to decide the revision petition filed by respondent No. 4-Shri Harjit Singh, which decision has gone against the petitioner. 2. De-hors of the details, suffice it to mention that matter was referred to an Inspector, Co-operative Societies for arbitration under Section 55 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act"), regarding a particular dispute which was decided against the petitioner and liability of Rs. 12, 000/- as principal amount, besides interest and costs, was fastened against the petitioner. He filed an appeal against the award given by the Arbitrator (in this case an Inspector of Co-opertive Societies). The appeal was heard by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Vide order dated 12.11.1996 (Annexure P-2), the appeal was decided in favour of the petitioner and against respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 then filed revision petition which was heard by the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies and the decision went against the petitioner and in favour of respondent No. 4. Copy of order is appended as Annexure P-3, dated 9.2.1999. Hence the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Assistant Registrar having decided the appeal of the petitioner while exercising the powers of Registrar, revision under Section 69 of the Act lay before the Government and not before the Registrar/Additional Registrar. The argument proceeded that the Assistant Registrar while deciding the appeal was deciding the same as delegatee of the Registrar and therefore, Additional Registrar or even the Registrar could not decide the matter in revision petition as the powers of the Registrar had already been exercised by the Assistant Registrar while deciding the appeal. Reliance has been placed on judgment of this Court in Brij Lal v. The State of Punjab and others, 1973 PLJ 462. 4. To appreciate the argument, provisions of Sections 68 and 69 of the Act may be noticed : "68. Appeals. Reliance has been placed on judgment of this Court in Brij Lal v. The State of Punjab and others, 1973 PLJ 462. 4. To appreciate the argument, provisions of Sections 68 and 69 of the Act may be noticed : "68. Appeals. - (1) An appeal shall lie under this section against : (a) an order of the Registrar made under sub-section (2) of Section 8 refusing to register a society; (b) an order of the Registrar made under sub-section (4) of Section 10 refusing to register an amendment of the bye-laws of a co-operative society; (bb) an order of the Registrar made under Section 10-A directing amendment of bye-laws of a co-operative society; (c) a decision of a co-operative society, other than a producers society refusing to admit any person a member of the society who is otherwise duly qualified for membership under the bye-laws of the society; (d) a decision of co-operative society expelling any of its members; (e) an order made by the Registrar removing or suspending a committee or a member thereof under Section 27; (f) an order made by the Registrar under Section 52 apportioning the costs of an inquiry held under Section 50 or an inspection made under Section 51; (g) any order of surcharge under Section 54; (h) any decision or award made under Section 56; (i) any order made by the Registrar under Section 57 directing the winding up of a co-operative society; (j) any order made by the liquidator of a co-operative society in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Section 59; (k) any order made under Section 65; (l) grant of a certificate under Section 67-A for the recovery of the amount due from a member on account of loan and interest thereon; (2) An appeal against any decision or order under sub-section (1) shall be made within 60 days from the date of decision or order : (a) if the decision or order was made by the Assistant Registrar, to the Deputy Registrar; (b) if the decision or order was made by the Deputy Registrar, to the Registrar or such Additional Registrar or Joint Registrar as may be authorised by the Registrar in this behalf; (c) if the decision or order was made by the Joint Registrar or Additional Registrar, to the Registrar; (d) if the decision or order was made by the Registrar, to the Government; (e) if the decision or order was made by any other person, to the Registrar or such Additional Registrar or Joint Registrar or Deputy Registrar or Assistant Registrar as may be authorised by the Registrar in this behalf. (3) No appeal shall lie under this section from any decision or order made by any authority in appeal. (4) Any appeal under sub-section (1) pending immediately before the commencement of the Punjab Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 1969, before any authority shall stand transferred to the authority to whom such appeal lies on such commencement. 69. Revision. - The State Government and the Registrar may, suo motu or on the application of a party to a reference, call for and examine the record of any proceedings in which no appeal under Section 68 lies to the Government or the Registrar as the case may be, for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed and if in any case it appears to the Government or the Registrar that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled or revised, the Government or the Registrar, as the case may be, may, after giving persons affected thereby an opportunity of being heard, pass such order thereon as it or he may deem fit." 5. It will be seen from Section 68(2)(a) of the Act that if a decision is made by an Assistant Registrar then the appeal lies to the Deputy Registrar. Under Section 68(2)(e) of the Act, if the decision is made by any other person, the appeal lies to the Registrar or such Additional Registrar or Joint Registrar or Deputy Registrar or Assistant Registrar as may be authorised by the Registrar in this behalf. 6. The question that arises for consideration is, whether the appeal which was decided by the Assistant Registrar was under the authorisation by the Registrar under Section 68(2)(e) of the Act. There are orders issued by the Registrar authorising Assistant Registrar/Deputy Registrar/Additional Registrar/Joint Registrar to hear the appeal. To our mind such authorisation under Section 68(2)(e) of the Act would not amount to delegation of powers. Rather it will authorisation. Section 68(2)(e) envisages that the Registrar himself can decide the appeal or he may authorise anybody else. Section 3(3) of the Act is in the following terms : "3(3). The Government may, by general or special order, confer on any person appointed under sub-section (2), all or any of the powers of the Registrar under this Act." 7. Section 68(2)(e) envisages that the Registrar himself can decide the appeal or he may authorise anybody else. Section 3(3) of the Act is in the following terms : "3(3). The Government may, by general or special order, confer on any person appointed under sub-section (2), all or any of the powers of the Registrar under this Act." 7. When Brij Lals case (supra) was decided, there was in operation a qualification dated 12.9.1963 issued by the State Government under Section 3(3) of the Act by which the Assistant Registrars/Deputy Registrars had been conferred the powers exercisable by the Registrar including one under Section 68 of the Act. It was under these circumstances that in Brij Lals case (supra) it was held that Deputy Registrar while deciding the appeal was exercising the powers of the Registrar as a delegate. In the latest notification dated 21.3.1978, Assistant Registrar had not been given power of the Registrar by the State Government which are exercisable by the Registrar under Section 68 of the Act. 8. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, dictum in Brij Lals case (supra) would not apply to the facts of present case. Reading of Section 69 of the Act makes it clear that if the order under revision has been passed by Assistant Registrar/Deputy Registrar, the revision would lie to the Registrar. 9. We have been shown the order dated 1.3.1989 issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, whereby the Additional Registrar has also been conferred the power to hear the revision petition. Apart from the above, even the notification dated 21.3.1978 confers all powers of the Additional Registrar which are exercisable by the Registrar under the Act. 10. In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any lack of jurisdiction in the Additional Registrar to decide the revision petition filed by respondent No. 4. Even on merits also, we do not find any infirmity. Petition dismissed.