A. LALA, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is made by a Housing Co-operative Society challenging the order of the Registrar of the Co-operative Society, West Bengal dated 11th March, 2002 with other incidental prayers in connection thereto. The grievance of the writ petitioners is that the order impugned is not sustainable for the following three reasons: (a) The Registrar has no jurisdiction to pass an order superseding the order of the Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Society as passed earlier on 16th January, 2002; (b) no opportunity of hearing is given which ought to be there before passing such order; (c) If the order is an administrative order the same cannot be given any retrospective effect; ( 2 ) MR. Anupam Chatterjee, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner contended that according to section 137 (2) (b) Registrar can call and examine the records of an enquiry held or inspection made under this Act or the proceedings of any person subordinate to him not vested to the powers of Registrar or acting of his authority and if he has opinion that any order, decision or award or any proceeding so called for should be for any reason modified, annulled or reversed he may make such order thereon as he thinks fit provided that the Registrar shall before he makes any order under Clauses (a) and (b) given any person likely to be affected adversely by such order and opportunity being heard. Therefore, when no opportunity was given to the petitioner, the power, if any, used by such authority is in violation of principle of natural justice and for the same a writ jurisdiction of this Court can be invoked. In this way, he met with the point No. 2 as formulated above. ( 3 ) SO far as the point No. 1 is concerned he contended before this Court that whenever a Registrar delegates his power to his subordinate, such person, in effect, discharging the duty of the Registrar which could not be revised or reopened by the Registrar himself. Under section 9 of the West Bengal Co-operative Society Act, 1983 the State Government appoints a person to be the Registrar of the Co-operative Society for West Bengal and other persons to assist him as it may deem fit. Under section 9 of the West Bengal Co-operative Society Act, 1983 the State Government appoints a person to be the Registrar of the Co-operative Society for West Bengal and other persons to assist him as it may deem fit. As per Rule 2 (1) (b) Additional Registrar, Joint Registrar, Deputy Registrar, Assistant Registrar are the persons amongst others to be appointed by those designations by the State Government to assist the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. ( 4 ) HE cited a judgment reported in 1992 supple. (1) SCC 720 (Yogendra Prasad v. Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar and Ors.) particularly paragraph 3 therein to establish what would be the definition of Registrar under the Co-operative Societies, although the same was in respect of Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935. However, according to the learned senior counsel, the provision is similarly placed with regard to the power of the Registrar and his power of delegation transferred or assignment of duties to his subordinates as named therein. He further contended that the some of the powers are to be exclusively discharged by the Registrar. Such power cannot be delegated. Whenever a power is delegated to discharge the function as a Registrar by the subordinates such power cannot be superseded in the manner as has been done in this particular case. ( 5 ) THE elaboration of his three points is that assuming any order is passed or direction is given by the delegate can be revised by the Registrar. The same cannot be construed other than use of an administrative order. Therefore, such administrative order cannot be given any retrospective effect which has been wrongly done by the Registrar under the order impugned. Factually, he contended that by the order dated 16th January, 2002 the Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Societies granted a permission to the wife of the deceased member to admit her as member. But the order of the Registrar dated 11th March, 2002 gives a retrospective effect of the membership on and from 5th April, 1998 from the date of the death of the demise. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsels appearing for the respondent No. 4 and State respondents herein vehemently opposed the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. According to them, firstly, the writ petition is not maintainable in the name of the Director. It has to be in the name of the Chairman. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsels appearing for the respondent No. 4 and State respondents herein vehemently opposed the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. According to them, firstly, the writ petition is not maintainable in the name of the Director. It has to be in the name of the Chairman. As because the Chairman is restrained by an interlocutory order passed in an arbitration proceedings the writ jurisdiction is invoked to frustrate the order of the Arbitrator in the name of the Director. As per such order, two Special Officers were appointed to make the banking operation. Therefore, when the dispute case was lodged and Arbitrator is appointed to pass an interlocutory order which has been communicated on 13th May, 2002 there is no scope to interfere with the same by the writ Court. The Chairman is appeared under section 96 (4) from taking a banking operation. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 contended that she never expressed her willingness to step down and the petitioner was not in a position to place any basis of such expression. Learned counsel appearing for such submission supported the contention. From the annexure P2 I find a resolution of the Managing Committee dated 16th January, 2002 was shown by saying that as because the membership of the respondent No. 4 was not approved prior to the communication dated 16th January, 2002 she could not act as Chairperson. Therefore, she stepped down and as a consequential effect one Sri Dipak Munshi as a Chairman and Sri Arnab Ghosh were to continue as Treasurer. The banking operation will be done by the Chairman, Treasurer and any one Director by signing of the check in case of any particular amount but less than the amount can be withdrawn by the Treasurer and one of the Directors. ( 8 ) BOTH the learned counsels have contended before this Court that the Deputy Registrar has not given any time from which date the permission of the membership was given to the respondent No. 4, in his communication dated 16th January, 2002. Therefore, there is no question of any retrospective effect. The Registrar has each and every power to revise the order passed by this subordinates. There is no wrong in it. Therefore, there is no question of any retrospective effect. The Registrar has each and every power to revise the order passed by this subordinates. There is no wrong in it. Moreover, the subject matter of dispute is before the Arbitrator appointed in a dispute case in which an interlocutory order was passed restraining such Chairman from making any banking operation appointing to Special Officers for such operation. Such order was duly communicated on 30th May, 2002 and hearing of the further interlocutory application is fixed on 12th June, 2002. It appears that the present writ petition was affirmed on 11th June, 2002. Therefore, the whole indication is to frustrate the proceedings before the learned Arbitrator. ( 9 ) I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for both the parties. According to me, there is an apparent fallacy of the argument of the counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners. In the instant case, a resolution was taken about continuation of the wife of the deceased as member of the Co-operative Society. The same will be accepted or be rejected by the office of the Registrar of the Co-operative Society. It correctly appears that the permission was given admitting her membership on 16th January, 2002. Such permission is silent about effective date which has been corrected by the order of the Registrar dated 11th March, 2002 giving an effect from the date of the death of her husband i. e. 5th April, 1998. This position was definitely accepted by all the contesting parties. Otherwise such respondent No. 4 could not have been allowed to continue as Chairperson of the Housing Co-operative Society for such a long period and there was purported occasion of stepping her down on the basis of the communication of the Deputy Registrar being dated 16th January, 2002, annexure P1 to the writ petition. It appears to this Court that the dispute is in respect of the two parties. One is Smt. Aparajita Dasgupta, respondent No. 4 and another is Sri Dipak Munshi so-called Chairman of the Managing Committee of the Housing Co-operative Society restrained by an interlocutory order of the Arbitrator in a dispute case pending before this Court. There is a reason of such belief of the Court. One is Smt. Aparajita Dasgupta, respondent No. 4 and another is Sri Dipak Munshi so-called Chairman of the Managing Committee of the Housing Co-operative Society restrained by an interlocutory order of the Arbitrator in a dispute case pending before this Court. There is a reason of such belief of the Court. It appears from the annexure P2 that such Dipak Munshi as a Chairman and one Sri Arnab Ghosh were directed to continue as Treasurer and they were also directed to make banking operation under the resolution dated 2nd March, 2002. But in the interlocutory order Sri Arnab Ghosh was appointed as a Special Officer with another person for banking operation and said Sri Dipak Munshi was restrained that there is a further reason of presuming so when it appears that the further hearing of the interlocutory petition was fixed on 12th June, 2002 and the writ petition was made on 11th June, 2002 just one day before the same. Thus, I cannot hold it fit to be a dispute in the nature ought to be interfered by this Court in the manner as proposed by the petitioner. So far as the points as raised by Mr. Chatterjee are concerned I think the Registrar has each and every power to revise the order passed by him. If for the argument sake it can be said that the Registrar includes the Deputy Registrar who communicated the order on 16th January, 2002 the same cannot debar the Registrar from revising the same because both are the Registrars on the true sense of the argument of Mr. Chatterjee. Moreover, if 137 (2) is clearly read it will be seen that Registrar may of his own motion or on the application made in the prescribed manner by a person aggrieved can modify, annul or revise the order passed by any person subordinate to him acting on his authority. This is the interpretation of the Court as to the scope and ambit of 137 (2) (b) of the Act. Therefore, Registrar has power to do the needful and he has correctly done so. The next question of whether anybody is affected by the same order it cannot be said that the Co-operative Society by the pen of the Director Sri Arun Kumar Das cannot be effected a person. Therefore, Registrar has power to do the needful and he has correctly done so. The next question of whether anybody is affected by the same order it cannot be said that the Co-operative Society by the pen of the Director Sri Arun Kumar Das cannot be effected a person. If any person is there the same might have been Co-operative Society itself and the members of the Co-operative Society. But from the argument of the petitioner itself it appears that they have accepted the respondent No. 4 as the Chairman long before but according to them she stepped down only after the communication dated 16th January, 2002. Therefore, can it be said that the Co-operative Society was run by a Chairperson having no membership from 1998 till 2002? My answer is 'no'. The vacuum has to be filled up by a non-member from the family of the members immediately on death. Whether the same resolution has been taken by the Co-operative Society or any formula was given by the Registrar of his office subsequent thereto is immaterial. Therefore, there is no scope of retrospective effect. The question of wrongful retrospectively will only arise when it was made de hors the law. Here there is no such occasion. The Registrar only clarified the position within his domain. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in respect of the order impugned passed by the Registrar. Hence, taking into totality of the matter I am of the view that the writ petition ought not to be sustained. Thus, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order is passed as to costs. Let an urgent certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the learned advocate for the parties within two weeks from the date of putting the requisites. Petition dismissed