Judgment :- Though the W.V.M.P.No.2284 of 2003 and W.P.M.P.No.42622 of 2003 are listed, by consent of parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposal. 2. The petitioner is the Board of Management of General Insurance Corporation Employees Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society Limited. The writ petition is for an order forbearing the respondent viz., the Joint Registrar (Chennai Region), Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies from taking any further action on the basis of the complaint which is the subject matter of show cause notice dated 26.4.2002. 3. The petitioner-society was issued with the said show cause notice in respect of certain irregularities alleged to have been committed by the Board of Management of the said society. The petitioner earlier filed W.P.No.24414 of 2002 before this Court questioning the said show cause notice. However, taking into consideration of the fact that the petitioner submitted the explanation to the show cause notice even on 20.6.2002, this Court dismissed the writ petition with a direction to the respondent herein to consider and pass orders with reference to the explanation/objection of the petitioner in accordance with law, by order dated 11.8.2003. Since the respondent did not dispose of the show cause notice and the explanation as directed, the Board called a meeting of the general body on 4.12.2003. In the said meeting as many as 143 members all over India participated and resolved to conduct the election to the Board, as the period of the Board comes to an end on 20.12.2003. In the circumstances, according to the petitioner, the respondent shall be prevented from taking action on the basis of the complaint which is the subject matter of the show cause notice dated 26.4.2002. 4. Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would contend that after the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 has come into force on 3.7.2002, the power of supersession is given only to the Central Government in terms of Section 123 of the Act. The respondent being the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies, though was empowered to supersede the Board under Section 48 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984, in view of the 2002 Act, he cannot proceed with the show cause notice. Hence, the respondent should be restrained from proceeding with the show cause notice. 5. The respondent being the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies, though was empowered to supersede the Board under Section 48 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984, in view of the 2002 Act, he cannot proceed with the show cause notice. Hence, the respondent should be restrained from proceeding with the show cause notice. 5. On the other hand, Mr.S.Kandaswamy, learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the power of the Central Registrar to pursue the proceedings pending before him even after the 2002 Act has come into force is preserved under sub-section (6) of Section 126. In any case, he would submit that the power of supersession of the Board by the Central Government is only in respect of specified multi-State cooperative society. The petitioner-society which does not have 51% of paid-up share capital held by the Central Government cannot be considered as specified multi-State cooperative society and therefore, Section 123 of the 2002 Act is not applicable. 6. When the writ petition was heard on 8.12.2003, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the respondent has since passed orders on the show cause notice even on 1.12.2003, the relief sought for in the writ petition does not survive, as the petitioner has got a right of appeal against the said order. This submission of the learned Special Government Pleader was disputed by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner on the ground that this Court had granted injunction on 1.12.2003 and after knowing the order, the respondent has passed the final order on 1.12.2003. In view of the above dispute, I directed the learned Special Government Pleader to produce the files. Accordingly, the files are also produced. 7. Insofar as the issue as to the passing of order by the respondent on 1.12.2003, from the files it is seen that the copy of the interim order granted by this Court was communicated to the respondent only on 2.12.2003. The order of the respondent made pursuant to the directions of this Court in the earlier writ petition was made on 1.12.2003. In fact the telegram sent by the petitioner was dated 2.12.2003. A covering letter of the petitioner dated 1.12.2003 was received by the respondent on 4.12.2003, as could be seen from the endorsement in the said letter. The files maintained in the course of business can be accepted as to the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader. In fact the telegram sent by the petitioner was dated 2.12.2003. A covering letter of the petitioner dated 1.12.2003 was received by the respondent on 4.12.2003, as could be seen from the endorsement in the said letter. The files maintained in the course of business can be accepted as to the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader. Hence, I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner that the order was passed after knowing the interim order of this Court. 8. Coming to the contentions based on Section 123 of the 2002 Act, I am not inclined to go into the question as to whether the petitioner-society is a specified multi-State cooperative society or not in terms of explanation to Section 123, as there is a rival dispute. In the event the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader is accepted, the Central Government would have power to supersede the Board of specified multi-State cooperative society alone and not the other societies. Such cannot be the object of the Act. However, for the disposal of the writ petition, I am not inclined to enter into any discussion on the said submissions. Insofar as the power of the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies to supersede the Board, Section 48 of the 1984 Act is referable. There is no dispute that the Central Registrar of cooperative societies is empowered to supersede the Board. After the 2002 Act has come into force i.e., 3.7.2002, the power is vested only with the Central Government. There is no dispute on this issue. However, the reliance placed by the learned Special Government Pleader to trace the power of the Central Registrar is sub-section (6) of Section 126 of the 2002 Act. The said sub-section reads as under:- "(6) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, any legal proceeding pending in any court of before the Central Registrar or any other authority at the commencement of this Act shall be continued to be in that court or before the Central Registrar or that authority as if this Act had not been passed." From the reading of the said section, the power of the Central Registrar is saved to proceed with any legal proceeding pending before him, to continue and pass further orders. However, Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel submitted that a show cause notice pending before a cooperative Registrar cannot be considered as legal proceedings and therefore the Central Registrar would have no jurisdiction to continue the proceedings on the basis of the show cause notice. This argument cannot be accepted as the language employed in sub-section (6) of Section 126 includes any legal proceedings pending before the Central Registrar or any other authority at the commencement of the Act. The words "legal proceeding" employed in the said sub-section are traceable to the proceedings pending on the basis of show cause notice also. Otherwise, there is no meaning in the said sub-section in referring only a legal proceedings which cannot be considered as pending before any other authority which includes only executives. 9. In that view of the matter, the injunction sought for in this writ petition forbearing the respondent from proceeding further with the show cause notice cannot be granted. That apart, the respondent had already passed orders on the show cause notice on 1.12.2003 itself. On both counts, the relief sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is entitled to question the order of the respondent dated 1.12.2003 before the appellate forum. 10. There is yet another aspect of the matter. As on today, the Board of the petitioner-society has been superseded. The direction of this Court to the respondent to consider and pass orders was made on 11.8.2003. The respondent has taken his own time to dispose of the said explanation/objection. In view of the fact that the period of Board itself comes to an end on 20.12.2003, on the bona fide belief that the respondent has not taken any further action against the Board on the basis of show cause notice, a meeting of the general body of the petitioner-society was called on 4.12.2003 wherein as many as 143 members all over India participated and in the meeting it was resolved to initiate proceedings for conduct of election. Accordingly, a Returning Officer was also appointed on the same day and the election process had commenced. Had the respondent acted in time as directed by this Court, this subsequent development would not have occurred. Nevertheless, the respondent cannot have any objection in the conduct of election in accordance with the bye-laws. Accordingly, a Returning Officer was also appointed on the same day and the election process had commenced. Had the respondent acted in time as directed by this Court, this subsequent development would not have occurred. Nevertheless, the respondent cannot have any objection in the conduct of election in accordance with the bye-laws. In fact there is no serious dispute as to the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner in this regard from the respondent for conduct of election. In that view of the matter, the Administrator who is said to have taken charge is permitted to continue the election process, conduct the election and the office bearers so elected are entitled to take charge of the Board. 11. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.42622 of 2003 and W.V.M.P.No.2284 of 2003 are closed.