M. KATJU, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned orders of the respondents no. 1,2 and 3 mentioned in the letter dated 21. 03. 2003 (Annexure-1 to the Writ petition ). We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) THE Petitioner is a Housing cooperative Society registered under the u. P. Cooperative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). As stated in paragraph 8 of the writ petition, the term of the elected Committee of management of Society is till the year 2005. ( 3 ) IT is alleged in paragraph 10 of the writ petition that suddenly on 22. 03. 2003 a letter from the Additional City magistrate (II) Bareilly addressed to the secretary of the society was received in the office of the society informing that under the direction of the Minister of cooperative Department, Government of u. P. , the District magistrate, Bareilly has appointed the Additional City Magistrate (II) Bareilly, respondent no. 2 as Receiver of the society and also the conduct an enquiry against the society on some complaint made to him. True copy of the letter dated 21. 03. 2003 is Annexure no. 1 to the writ petition. We have seen the letter dated 21. 03. 2003 which has been challenged in this writ petition. ( 4 ) SRI Triloki Nath, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order date 21. 03. 2003 is wholly illegal as the District Magistrate Bareilly and Additional City Magistrate (II), bareilly have no jurisdiction to pass such an order appointing a Receiver for the society and ordering for an enquiry. ( 5 ) UNDER Section 65 of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, it is the registrar of co-operative Societies or a person authorized by him on his behalf who can hold an enquiry Under Section 35 of the Act, the Registrar can supersede or suspend the Committee of management. Under Section 35 (3) of the act, where the Registrar has superseded the Committee of Management, he may appoint an Administrator. ( 6 ) SRI Manish Goel, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that under Section 3 (2) of the Act the state Government by general or special order can confer on any person all or any of the powers of the Registrar. ( 6 ) SRI Manish Goel, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that under Section 3 (2) of the Act the state Government by general or special order can confer on any person all or any of the powers of the Registrar. He has invited our attention to the Notification dated 24. 06. 1969 published in U. P. Gazette, Part I dated 5th My, 1969. In that notification it is mentioned that the governor of U. P. has conferred the power of the Registrar under the Act to be exercised as follows: "an officer for the time being holding the post of District Magistrate of a district shall exercise the powers of the registrar under Section 70, 71 and 98 of the Act in respect of the disputes relating to the Constitution of the Committee of management or election or appointment of any office-bearer or a delegate of a Co-operative Society, other than an apex Co-operative Society, having headquarters within the district. " 1. Sri Goel has submitted that since the power under Section 98 of the Act has also been conferred on the District magistrate hence in view of the Section 98 (1) (e) of the Act, the District magistrate can supersede the Committee of Management under Section 35 of the act and can appoint an Administrator. In our opinion the submission of Sri goel is wholly misconceived. It may be mentioned that Section 3 (2) of the Act states:-"the State Government may, for the purpose of this Act, also appoint other persons to assist the Registrar and by general or special order confer on any such person all or any of the powers of the Registrar. " ( 7 ) IT may be noted that Section 3 (2)of the Act permits the conferment of any power of the Registrar on any other person. Section 98 (1) of the Act does not deal with the powers of the Registrar at all. It is a provision for an appeal against the order of the Registrar. Hence the notification dated 24. 06. 1969 relied on by Sri Manish Goel can only be relatable to Section 98 (2) (b) of the Act which state that if a decision or award was made by a person or authority other than the registrar then an appeal against that decision will lie to the Registrar. In view of the Notification dated 24. 06. 06. 1969 relied on by Sri Manish Goel can only be relatable to Section 98 (2) (b) of the Act which state that if a decision or award was made by a person or authority other than the registrar then an appeal against that decision will lie to the Registrar. In view of the Notification dated 24. 06. 1969 read with Section 3 (2) of the Act, this will mean that an appeal will lie to the District magistrate against an order made by a person or authority other than the registrar, in view of the above notification. Hence we do not at all agree with the submission of Sri Goel, that the district Magistrate has power to supersede or suspend a society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act or to appoint a Receiver or such society. ( 8 ) IN our opinion the District magistrate can not be allowed to do anything he pleases. In a democracy the district Magistrate can exercise only such powers as are granted to him by the law. No power has been given to the District magistrate under the Co-operative societies Act to suspend or supersede a society or to appoint a Receiver in respect of a society or to order an enquiry against the society or its officials. For the reasons given above, the writ petition is allowed the impugned order dated 21. 03. 2003 is quashed, no order as to cost. .