RAKESH SHARMA, J.), J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Since the common questions are involved in these writ petitions, the same are being disposed of together with a common judgment. ( 2 ) THE writ petition no. 5171 (M/b) of 2002 Mahesh Kumar gupta Vs. State of U. P. was finally disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 2. 12. 2002. Against the said judgment , appeals were filed by Sri Naresh Chandra Srivastava, opposite party no. 7 to this writ petition and the petitioner Sri Mahesh Kumar Gupta. Honble the Supreme Court of India has allowed the appeals on 8. 4. 2003, setting aside the aforementioned judgment and order passed by this Court, remitting the matter to this Court for deciding afresh in accordance with law alongwith other connected writ petitions. In view of this order, the connected writ petitions have been heard together. ( 3 ) THE pith and substance of these cases is whether after Re-organization of State of Uttar Pradesh and carving out the State of uttaranchal under the U. P. State Re-organization Act 2000 (which was promulgated on 9. 11. 2000) the affairs of various cooperative societies carrying out their business in both the States at the time of Re-organization shall be governed by the U. P. State Cooperative societies Act 1965 or by the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act 1984. Will these societies shall automatically become Multi State cooperative Societies with effect from 9. 11. 2000. ( 4 ) THE petitioners in writ petition no. 5171 (M/b) of 2002 have assailed the resolution dated 29. 7. 2002, election programme dated 12. 8. 2002 and the order dated 17. 8. 2002 on the ground that the multi State Cooperative Societies Act,1984 is not applicable on the society. The affairs of such societies are still to be governed by the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 and the resolution dated 29. 7. 2002 should not be implemented. The petitioners have sought a writ or directions in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties no. The affairs of such societies are still to be governed by the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 and the resolution dated 29. 7. 2002 should not be implemented. The petitioners have sought a writ or directions in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties no. 1 and 2 to ensure that the affairs of U. P. Processing and Cold Storage Federation Limited (Hereinafter referred to as the PACSFED) including the constitution of its Committee of management are to be governed by the relevant provisions contained in U. P. Cooperative Societies Act 1965 and the Rules and regulations of 1968 made thereunder. The petitioners have claimed themselves to the members of Board of Directors of the Committee of management of the apex society, known as PACSFED. According to the petitioner, they were elected in the election held on 4. 9. 1999. Their tenure, which was to continue upto 4. 9. 1999 was extended to two more years meaning thereby the members were to get five years term to continue in the office. Some of the petitioners submitted an application dated 3. 11. 2000 under Rule 114 of the U. P. Cooperative societies Rules 1968 requesting the Managing Director of the Society to hold a meeting of the Committee of Management/ Board of directors of the Society. The Managing Director had fixed 15. 12. 2000 for holding the meeting to discharge the obligations created by Rule 154 of the U. P. Cooperative Rules,1968. The opposite party no. 7, Naresh Shanker Srivastava filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 6006 (M/b) of 2000, challenging the jurisdiction of committee of Management to hold the proceedings under Rule 454. Vide order dated 14. 12. 2000, this Court had directed the petitioners to continue in the office till the complete procedure was followed and sanction granted from the Registrar. ( 5 ) THE above said writ petition was finally disposed of. Sri Naresh shanker Srivastava filed another writ petition no. 103 (M/b) of 2001 stating therein that as a result of the re-organization of State of uttar Pradesh on 9. 11. 2000 the PACSFED became a Multi State cooperative Society. The affairs and function of this apex society shall be governed by Multi State Cooperative Societies Act 1984 which was in vogue on the date of re-organization of the State. An interim order was passed by this Court on 16. 1. 11. 2000 the PACSFED became a Multi State cooperative Society. The affairs and function of this apex society shall be governed by Multi State Cooperative Societies Act 1984 which was in vogue on the date of re-organization of the State. An interim order was passed by this Court on 16. 1. 2001 staying the removal of Sri Naresh Shanker Srivastava, opposite party no. 7 from the office of Chairman of Board of Directors. Committee of management. ( 6 ) DURING the pendency of the said writ petition, the Central registrar issued registration certificate dated 14. 2. 2001 granting recognition of the society under the Multi State Cooperative Societies act,1984. Against that registration, the society and the State of U. P. filed revisions before the Central Government which were dismissed vide order dated 6. 2. 2002. Against this revisional order, two writ petitions being writ petition nos. 602 (M/s) of 2002 and 1710 (M/s) of 2002 U. P. Cooperative Processing and Cold Storage Cooperative lucknow and others Vs. Union of India and State of U. P. Vs. Union of India were filed by the Society and the State Government. These writ petitions have also come up for hearing before this Court and are part of this group of writ petitions. ( 7 ) HONble the Supreme Court has also observed that this Court may decide these writ petitions alongwith the other similar matter. In one set of writ petitions, PACSFED Society and the State government have challenged the registration dated 14. 2. 2001, saying that the affairs of the societies are to be governed by U. P. Cooperative Societies Act ,1965 and the Rules made thereunder. Section 95 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act 1984 is not applicable in the present set of circumstances. The petitioner in these cases have relied on Section 93 of the U. P. Reorganization Act 2000. The Society had never intended to become a Multi State cooperative Society and no steps were taken by it in furtherance of converting it to a Multi Cooperative Society. ( 8 ) DR. L. P. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners in writ petition nos. The Society had never intended to become a Multi State cooperative Society and no steps were taken by it in furtherance of converting it to a Multi Cooperative Society. ( 8 ) DR. L. P. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners in writ petition nos. 5171 (M/b) of 2002, 602 (M/s) of 2002 and 1710 (M/s)of 2002 and appearing for respondents in other cases has submitted that apex society, PACSFED is not a Multi State cooperative Society and hence its affairs are not to be governed by multi State Cooperative Society Act ,1984. However, later on, this act stood repealed and the Multi State Cooperative Societies,2002 was enacted and was enforced with effect from 19. 8. 2002. ( 9 ) THE main question for consideration before this Court is that whether from the appointed dated i. e. 9. 11. 2000, the concerned cooperative Societies having the State of U. P. as their area of operation and continuing to function in geographical area earmarked to become part of State of Uttaranchal by virtue of provision of Section 67 of the U. P. Reorganization Act 2000, shall continue to be governed by the U. P. Cooperative Society Act, 1965 or shall be governed by Multi State Cooperative Act, 1984 and thereafter by the new enactment of 19. 8. 2002. The cooperative soceity and the Multi State Cooperative Societies are defined under the definition clause of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act 1965 and Multi State Cooperative Societies Act 1984 ( 10 ) THE "cooperative Societies" is exclusively a State subject. Entry 32, List-II i. e. the State List reads as under:-"incorporation, Regulation and Winding Up of Corporations, other that those specified in list I, and Universities; unincorporated trading, literally, scientific, religious and other societies and association; cooperative societies. " ( 11 ) THE entries enumerated under List-I, i. e. the Union List, makes it clear that the "cooperative Societies" stand specifically excluded from the subjects mentioned in the Union List, i. e. the list containing the subjects or the items over which the Parliament has got exclusive jurisdiction to legislate. " ( 11 ) THE entries enumerated under List-I, i. e. the Union List, makes it clear that the "cooperative Societies" stand specifically excluded from the subjects mentioned in the Union List, i. e. the list containing the subjects or the items over which the Parliament has got exclusive jurisdiction to legislate. Entry 43 of List-I, reads as under:-"incorporation, Regulation and Winding up of Trading corporations, including Banking, Insurance and Financial corporations, but not including cooperative societies" ( 12 ) THE specific mention of the subject of "cooperative Societies" under Entry 32 after; under List-II on one hand and its specific exclusion from Entry 43 of List-I - Union List - makes it abundantly clear that in regard to the affairs of the Cooperative Societies only the State Legislature is competent to legislate and, therefore, except in the contingencies as stipulated under Article 252 of the constitution of India. As far as competence of parliament is concerned with respect to the cooperative societies, it is within the domain of Article 248 of the Constitution of India or in the event of the subject which could fall in the legislation category, as described under Article 248 of the Constitution of India. , Indian Parliament will have no competence to legislative in regard to the Cooperative societies. ( 13 ) ARTICLE 252 of the Constitution of India reads as under:-"article 252. Power of Parliament to legislate fror two or more states by consent and adoption of such legislation by any other state:- (1) If it appears to the legislatures of two or more States to be desirable that any of the maters with respect to which parliament has no power to laws for the States except as provided in Article 249 and 250 should be regulated in such states by Parliament by law and if resolutions to that effect are passed by all the houses of the legislatures of those states, it shall be lawful for Parliament to pass an Act for regulating that mater accordingly, and any Act so passed shall apply to such State and to any other State by which it is adopted after words by resolution passed in that behalf by the House or where there are two houses by each of the houses of the Legislature of that State. (2) Any Act so passed by Parliament may be amended or repealed by an Act of Parliament passed or adopted in like manner but shall not as respects any states to which it applies, be amended or repealed by an Act of the Legislature of that State. Provided thatprovided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enactingfrom atenacting at any time any law with respect to the same mattersame matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State. " ( 14 ) DR. Misra hasmisra has relied onrelied on the judgments reported in 1980 UPLBEC,202, Virendra Pal Singh Vs. District registrar Cooperative Societies ( paras 9 and 10), AIR 1972 allahabad 159 Sultan Singh Vs. Assistant Registrar (para-11), AIR 1993 SC 883 , Krishna Vs. Land Tribunal (para-3 ). In support of his submissions,. hhe submits that Cooperativethat Cooperative societies aresocieties are exclusively Stateexclusively State subject and the Parliament has no power to make enactmentmake enactment in respect of State Cooperative Societies. The U. P. Cooperative Societies Act 1965 is the creation of State legislature. The Multi State Cooperative Societies Act 1984 was not adopted by legislatureby oflegislature of the State of U. P. and Uttaranchaland. Uttaranchal. The deeming clausedeeming clause or the fiction as hasas has been highlightedbeen highlighted by the other Counsel, shall not be applicable in the present set of circumstances. According to Dr. Misra, the Cooperative Societiesy working in U. P. or in Uttaranchal on 9. 11. 2000 shall not automatically become multi State Cooperative Societies. They were not registered as multi State Cooperative Societies. Their bye- laws itself provided for area of operation i. e. whole of Uttar Pradesh including regions of kumaun and Garhwal, which has now become State of Uttaranchal ( 15 ) THE PACSFED has resolved that it would not operate in the State of Uttaranchal and its Cold Storages are not in operation in the said State. This fact itself proves that PACSFED cannot be treated as multi State Cooperative Society. Dr. Misra has lead the Court to Sections 67,86, 87 and 93 of the U. P. State Reorganization Act, 2000 and Sections 119,120 and 127 of the State Reorganization Act 1956 to prove his point. He has also drawn ourt attention to the various provisions of the State organization Act,1956. Further Dr. Dr. Misra has lead the Court to Sections 67,86, 87 and 93 of the U. P. State Reorganization Act, 2000 and Sections 119,120 and 127 of the State Reorganization Act 1956 to prove his point. He has also drawn ourt attention to the various provisions of the State organization Act,1956. Further Dr. Misra has relied on the decision of Honble the Supreme Court reported in (1979) 4 SCC 642 , HH shri Swamiji of Shri Amar Mutt and others Vs. Commissioner, Hindu ( 16 ) RELIGIOUS and Charitable Endowment Department and others ( para 7,21 and 25) in which the apex court had interpreted the import and purport of Sections 109 and 119 of the State Reorganization Act 1956 which are in verbatim to Sections 67 and 86 of the U. P. Reorganization Act,2000. It has been held in this case that the old law as it stood before reorganization, shall continue to apply in the areas going out towards the newly created State until the own laws were made by newly created State by adaptation, modification etc. The same legal position was propounded by Honble the supreme Court of India in a Constitutional Bench decision in the case of State of M. P. Vs. Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. , AIR 1964 SC 1179 (Para 5 ). On the basis of these judgments, Dr. Misra has contended that by virtue of Section 93 of the U. P. Reorganization act 2000, the provisions contained under that Act, including sections 86 and 87 shall hold the field and thereby U. P. Cooperative Societies Act 1965,the Rules and Regulations framed there under shall continue to apply and the affairs of the cooperative Societies which are operating in the State of U. P. before the appointed day and which by virtue of Section 67 continued to operate for time being in the areas earmarked towards the State of Uttaranchal. ( 17 ) DR. Misra has further cited the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2003) 11 SCC 66 , Apex Cooperative Bank of Urban bank of Maharastra and Goa Limited Vs. Maharashtra State cooperative Bank Ltd. and others, (2004) 3scc 767, K Anbazhagan vs. Superintendent of Police and others , (2004) 1scc 702, Ameer trading Corporation Ltd. Vs. Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd. and (2003) 7 SCC in paragraph 98 of Indian Handicraft Emporium Vs. Union of India in furtherance of his arguments. Maharashtra State cooperative Bank Ltd. and others, (2004) 3scc 767, K Anbazhagan vs. Superintendent of Police and others , (2004) 1scc 702, Ameer trading Corporation Ltd. Vs. Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd. and (2003) 7 SCC in paragraph 98 of Indian Handicraft Emporium Vs. Union of India in furtherance of his arguments. ( 18 ) DR. Misra has drawn our attention to the procedure of conversion of a State Cooperative Society to become Multi State cooperative Society. Section 18 of Multi State Cooperative Societies act 1984 deals with conversion of a Cooperative Society into a Multi state Cooperative Society. As per the by laws of PACSFED , U. P. Postal Primary Cooperative Bank Society the State of U. P. shall be their area of operation. This means that for converting the cooperative Societies into Multi State Cooperative Societies, it is incumbent upon them and is necessary that the bye laws of these societies should be amended to include the State of Uttaranchal as their areas of operation. In the present cases, the societies in litigation have not amended their bye laws in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 12 of the U. P. Cooperative societies Act,1965. Such amendments must be registered with the state Registrar Cooperative Societies or the Central Registrar in the cases of Multi State Cooperative Societies as provided in the scheme of U. P. Cooperative Society Act and Multi State Cooperative societies Act,1984. It is only after registration of the amendment and consultation of the States Registrar and by amending the bye-laws , a cooperative Society can become a Multi State Cooperative society. After following this procedure, Central Registrar may register such society as Multi State Cooperative Society under section 8 of the relevant Act of 1984. ( 19 ) IN respect of deeming fiction as created by Section 95 (1) of multi State Act (as per pleadings made in one group of petitions. Sri misra has submitted that this contention is misconceived in the circumstances of the case. He has relied upon the decision reported in (1995) Supp (2) 498 Voltas Ltd. Bombay Vs. Union of India and others, (1996) 6 SCC ,185, M. P. Ahmad and others Vs. K. State receiver and (1980) 4 SCC 341 Industrial Supplies Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs. He has relied upon the decision reported in (1995) Supp (2) 498 Voltas Ltd. Bombay Vs. Union of India and others, (1996) 6 SCC ,185, M. P. Ahmad and others Vs. K. State receiver and (1980) 4 SCC 341 Industrial Supplies Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs. Union of India and others to convey that a legal fiction cannot be extended beyond the purpose for which it is created on any analogy or by addition or deletion of words not contemplated by the legislature. A construction of word in the statute, which frustrates the object of the legislation and leads to manifest absurdity , should not be preferred. According to Sri Misra, Section 103 (1) of the Multi State Act 2002 is para-in-materia to Section 95 (1) of 1984 Multi State Act, but in 2002, Multi State Act, a proviso has been attached to sub- section (2) of Section 22 of the said Act and this proviso, which read as under :-"provided that no Cooperatives Society shall be deemed to have been converted into a Multi State Cooperative Society on any ground whatsoever unless such society is registered as a Multi State cooperative Society. " ( 20 ) THIS proviso has been deliberately attached with a view to remove the absurdity, anomaly and inconsistency contained in 1984 Act. The U. P. Reorganization Act 2000 is later Act of parliament and the specific provisions made under Sections 67,86 and 87 of this Act shall prevail upon Section 95 (1) of the Multi state Cooperative Societies Act ,1984, creating aforementioned legal fiction. The specific enactment for a particular subject ( an Act to provide for the reorganization of the existing State of U. P. and for matters connected therewith) then for that subject prescription made in general , shall not apply. A reliance has been placed on the decision given by the Supreme Court as reported in (1984) 4 SCC 27 , Maharastra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary education Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, (1979) 3 SCC 123 , gujrat State Cooperative Land Development Bank Vs. P. R. Mankad and (1990) 4 SCC 406 , Ashok Marketing Ltd. Vs. P. N. B. to highlight this point. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, (1979) 3 SCC 123 , gujrat State Cooperative Land Development Bank Vs. P. R. Mankad and (1990) 4 SCC 406 , Ashok Marketing Ltd. Vs. P. N. B. to highlight this point. ( 21 ) ACCORDING to Sri Misra before conversion of a State cooperative Society to a Multi State Cooperative Society there should have been prior consultation by the Government of India/ or the Central Registrar with the Registrars of the two States i. e. Uttar pradesh and Uttaranchal. As an exempler he has placed before the court a letter written by Government of India on 14. 8. 2002 to the two Registrars before conversion of U. P. Consumer Corporation federation Limited into a Multi State Cooperative Society. This procedure should have been followed in PACSFEDs case also. In view of this also. the other similarly situated State Cooperative societies can not be automatically converted into Multi Cooperative societies. Due procedure as indicated in the Act of1984 must be followed. ( 22 ) THE ratio of Bombay High Courts decision Mapusa Urban cooperative Bank Limited and another Vs. G. S. Patil and others reported in 1998 C. T. J. 863 is not applicable in the present set of circumstances as in the present case Section 67 and 87 of U. P. Reorganization Act 2000 has taken care of the Situation in U. P. Here area of operation of the Cooperative Societies is limited to state of U. P. only as per bye laws. The bye-laws have not been amended in U. P. In Mapusas case the Bombay High Court has not considered the prescriptions akin to Sections 67,86 and 87 of U. P. Reorganization Act 2000 nor the impact of provisions akin to section 93 of this Act was the subject matter for consideration before Bombay High Court. ( 23 ) SRI L. P. Misra has also indicated that learned counsel appearing for some of the parties the opposite parties have not made any submission in respect of employees, officers working in these societies. The terms and conditions of their services are still to be governed by the Services Rules and Regulations meant for the employees , officers of the U. Ps Cooperative Societies. If all the societies are declared as Multi State Cooperative Societies what will happen to the status and services conditions of these employees. The terms and conditions of their services are still to be governed by the Services Rules and Regulations meant for the employees , officers of the U. Ps Cooperative Societies. If all the societies are declared as Multi State Cooperative Societies what will happen to the status and services conditions of these employees. From this angle also, the U. Ps Cooperative Societies can not be said to be governed by Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, without making provisions for the employees. The service conditions of the employees cannot be changed without seeking option from them. ( 24 ) SRI Naresh Shanker Srivastava, opposite party No. 7 has filed counter affidavit in this case to contest this petition. On his behalf sri Rakesh Srivastava, Advocate has put forth a detailed arguments before this Court. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 7 has submitted that the PACSFED is an apex cooperative society as defined in U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 and the rules made thereunder. Its area of operation is extended to the whole of U. P. and uttarnchal. The PACSFED being an apex cooperative society is having membership of a large number of cooperative societies including from Kumaon and Garhwal region of erstwhile U. P. On coming into force of U. P. Reorganization Act, 2000, the objects, area of activities of PACSFED extended to both the States i. e. U. P. and the State of Uttaranchal. This apex society started looking after the interest of the members of cooperative societies, State of U. P. as well as in Uttaranchal. After bifurcation of State of U. P. on 9. 11. 2000, the PACSFED automatically became a Multi State Cooperative society by virtue of Section 95 of Multi State Cooperative Societies act, 1984. The Central Registrar has rightly registered this apex society, PACSFED as a Multi State Cooperative Society by issuing registration certificate dated 14. 2. 2001. The revision filed by the state of U. P. and the society was rightly rejected by the Central registrar. ( 25 ) SRI Rakesh Srivastava has further submitted that in Section 8 of the aforesaid Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984, it has been provided that the registration certificate issued by Central registrar shall be a conclusive evidence of the fact that the society therein mention mentioned in the certificate is duly registered as a multi State Cooperative Society. ( 25 ) SRI Rakesh Srivastava has further submitted that in Section 8 of the aforesaid Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984, it has been provided that the registration certificate issued by Central registrar shall be a conclusive evidence of the fact that the society therein mention mentioned in the certificate is duly registered as a multi State Cooperative Society. Thus no contrary inference can be drawn unless the registration certificate is cancelled. In view of this, the notice issued by Deputy Registrar, cooperative Societies, U. P. , Lucknow, who had no authority under law or jurisdiction to issue any notice to the opposite party no. 7, was illegal null and void. The Deputy Registrar and Registrar, cooperative Societies, U. P. ceased to have jurisdiction over the Multi state Cooperative Society. The term of committee of management of the PACSFED cannot be extended from 3 years to 5 years by the ordinance No. 10 of 2002 issued by His Excellency. E. tthe Governor of Uttar Pradesh. All the meetings, proceedings of the committee of management held in compliance of Deputy Registrars orders were illegal and improper as these proceedings were violative of the provisions of Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984, which shall now hold the field under the now and the new Act of 2002. All the orders passed by Deputy Registrar, therefore, are null and void. Sri Rakesh Srivastava has further submitted that the vires of multi State Cooperative Societies Act have not been challenged by the PACSFED or by other petitioners. He has defended this Act by submitting that this Act was not enacted under Article 252 of the constitution of India as the Preamble and Application clause of the act does not mentions this fact. In this regard he has cited examples of the 4 Acts, The Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994, The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, The Prize competitions Act, 1955 and The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, which were enacted under Article 252 of the Constitution of India. The Parliament can legislate under List-I Entry 1997 in respect of multi Cooperative Societies Act. The Multi Cooperative Societies is a corporate Body orbody or a Corporation as per provisions contained in Section 9 and 52 of the aforesaid Act of 1984 and the entry 44 of the List I of the VIIth Schedule of the Constitution of india. The Parliament can legislate under List-I Entry 1997 in respect of multi Cooperative Societies Act. The Multi Cooperative Societies is a corporate Body orbody or a Corporation as per provisions contained in Section 9 and 52 of the aforesaid Act of 1984 and the entry 44 of the List I of the VIIth Schedule of the Constitution of india. ( 26 ) SRI Rakesh Srivastava has cited some judgments vide Daman singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1985 SC 973 (Paras 4,5, 6 and 7) and shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee Vs. L. S. Gill, AIR 1970 pandh 40 (Full Bench) Para11, in, in support of his version. The multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 is to operate in all the states of India including Uttar Pradesh. He has also stressed on legal fiction as created by Sections 67 and 95 of the State reorganization Act, 2000, further submitting that the cooperative societies and the Corporations having area of operation in U. P. and uttaranchal like PACSFED shall become a Multi State Cooperative society. The operation of this Act cannot be halted nor the operation of the Section 95 be stalled by any state enactment. Sri Rakesh Srivastava has tried to distinguish the cases cited by Dr. L. P. Misra during the course of his arguments. He has placed reliance on cases cited by Sri Amit Bose and laid stress on the mapusa Urban Banks cases further cited A-one Granites Vs. State of U. P. , (2001) 3 SCC 537 (Paras 10,11,12, and 13) and the State of u. P. Vs. Synthetics and Chemicals (1991) 4 SCC 139 (paras 39, 40 and 41) and Shrikant Bhalchand Karulkar Vs. State of Gujrat (1994)5 SCC 459 (Para 7 ). ( 27 ) IT is noteworthy that one group of the learned counsels that is sri Rakesh Srivastava, Sri Amit Bose, Sri Raghvendra Singh etc. who are appearing for some committees of management, members of executive of the committee have led much emphasis on legal fiction created by various provisions of U. P. Reorganization Act and Multi state Cooperative Societies Act to prove that on 9. 11. who are appearing for some committees of management, members of executive of the committee have led much emphasis on legal fiction created by various provisions of U. P. Reorganization Act and Multi state Cooperative Societies Act to prove that on 9. 11. 2000 the date carving out the State of Uttaranchal, the cooperative societies which are operative in two states, Uttar Pradesh and Uttaranchal have become Multi Cooperative Societies, the area of operation of cooperative societies, litigating before this Court have not been reduced due to reorganization of state of Uttar Pradesh, the bye-laws of the societies have not been amended to reduce the area. According to Section 67, of the U. P. Reorganization Act, it is provided that the Body Corporate (including PACSFED) shall continue to function and operate in those areas also where it was functioning and operating before appointed day (9. 11. 2000 ). The society automatically becomes a Multi State Cooperative Society by virtue of Section 95 of Multi State Cooperative Society Act, 1984. According to learned counsel for the above said group, the word becomes is preceded by the word by virtue of Part II of the U. P. Reorganization Act. It has further been submitted that by virtue of part II of the U. P. Reorganization Act, The State of U. P. has been divided into two states. The cooperative society shall also automatically become a Multi State Cooperative Society, stands registered automatically under the provision of Section 95 of the said act. This section contains a deeming provision and it create a legal fiction which has to be given full effect and should be carried to its logical consequences. The purpose of Section 95 is to continue the existence of such societies which become Multi State Cooperative society and thus fulfill the purpose of Section 67 of the U. P. Reorganization Act. Learned counsel has laid much stress on the ratio of the judgment of Mapusa Urban Cooperative Bank Vs. G. S. Gill reported in 1998 Banking J. 656 (Paras 6,8 and 10 ). The cooperative society can be converted into a Multi State Cooperative society as per Section 18 of the Multi State Cooperative Society Act. According to Sri Rakesh Srivastava, in the present case the aforementioned society shall be treated as deemed Multi State cooperative Society as PACSFEDetc. G. S. Gill reported in 1998 Banking J. 656 (Paras 6,8 and 10 ). The cooperative society can be converted into a Multi State Cooperative society as per Section 18 of the Multi State Cooperative Society Act. According to Sri Rakesh Srivastava, in the present case the aforementioned society shall be treated as deemed Multi State cooperative Society as PACSFEDetc. have automatically become multi State Cooperative Society under Section 95 of the aforesaid Act of 1984. No act is required to be done by the Society or any authority to convert it into a Multi State Cooperative Society but it shall become such by operation of law. The procedure as prescribed under Section 18 of the Multi State Cooperative Society Act, 1984 is not applicable in such cases. ( 28 ) IN respect of sections 86 and 87 of the U. P. Reorganization Act, 2000, it has been submitted by Sri Srivastava that these provisions are to fill up the vacuum by providing the existing laws of Uttar pradesh shall operate in new State of Uttaranchal. When there is an inter-play of two acts, the provisions of one act should always be interpreted in such a manner that it may not nullify the provisions of another Act. Thus, Section 86 of U. P. Reorganization Act and section 95 of the Multi State Cooperative Society Act should be interpreted in such a manner that they may not come in conflict with each other, in fact there is no conflict between the two provisions. ( 29 ) SRI Amit Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ petition No. 5671 (M/b) of 2002, U. P. Postal Primary Cooperative bank Limited Vs. Union of India and others has submitted that the petitioners society was registered as a Cooperative Society on 21. 8. 1915. It became a Cooperative Society under Sections 131 and 134 of the U. P. Cooperative Society Act,1965 after the old Central acts of 1912 and 1940 were repealed. Sri Bose has submitted that under one legal fiction, this society was taken out of the purview of central Act and brought to be governed by U. P. Act. After reorganization of the State of Uttar Pradesh on 9. 11. 2000, it has become a Multi State Cooperative Society as the petitioners society is also having its area of operations in cities and towns of the State of Uttranchal also. After reorganization of the State of Uttar Pradesh on 9. 11. 2000, it has become a Multi State Cooperative Society as the petitioners society is also having its area of operations in cities and towns of the State of Uttranchal also. The petitioners society is now a Multi State cooperative Society as per Section 2, 2a (1) and 2 (a) of the aforementioned Act of 1994. Sri Bose has laid much emphasis on the point of legal fiction created by Section 95 of the Multi State cooperative Societies Act contending that on and from the appointed date i. e. 9. 11. 2000 of the Cooperative societies, who are having an area of operation in both the States shall start to be governed by Multi State Cooperative Societies Act ,1984. Thus, the exercise of issuance of chargesheet, a show cause notice signed by the District Registrar Cooperative Societies are illegal, null and void as the proceedings are being taken against the petitioners committee under U. P. Cooperative Societies Act. ( 30 ) ACCORDING to Sri Bose, the opposite parties must not interfere in the functioning of the petitioners committee of Management, as it shall now be governed by Multi State Cooperative Societies Act. On the point of legal fiction. Sri Amit Bose has relied on the judgment reported in (1975) 1 SCC, 192, Boucher Pierre Andre Vs. Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi and another, (1980) 4 scc 341 , Industrial Supplies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (1992) 2 scc 177 , Harpeet Kaur Vs. Harvinder Singh Bedi, 1993 Supp (2)SCC 674, Polaki Motors Vs. State of Orissa, 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 498 voltas Limited , Bombay Vs. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 185 , mancheri Puthusseri Ahmed Vs. Kuthiravattam Estate Receiver, (1996) 4 SCC 76 Parayankandiyal Eravath Kanapravan Kalliani amma Vs. K. Devi, (1997) 1 SCC 326 , State of T. N. Vs. Arooran sugars Ltd. , (1997)1 SCC 650 Gajraj Singh Vs. State Transport appellate Tribunal, (1995) 1 SCC 537 Harish Tandon Vs. Additional district Magistrate, Allahabad, U. P. , (1996) 1 SCC 722 , Mohamed iqbal Madar Sheikh Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 2 SCC 353 , G. Vishwanathan Vs. Honble Speaker Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly, madras, (1998) 3 SCC 148 , V Uthirapathi Vs. Ashrab Ali and others, (2000) 2 SCC 699 , State of Maharastra Vs. Additional district Magistrate, Allahabad, U. P. , (1996) 1 SCC 722 , Mohamed iqbal Madar Sheikh Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 2 SCC 353 , G. Vishwanathan Vs. Honble Speaker Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly, madras, (1998) 3 SCC 148 , V Uthirapathi Vs. Ashrab Ali and others, (2000) 2 SCC 699 , State of Maharastra Vs. Laljit Rajshi Shah and others , (1977) 4 SCC 471 , The State of Karnataka Vs. Shri ranganatha Reddy, (1977)1 SCC 666 , State of Mysore Vs. Fakkrusab Babusab Karanandi and 1995 Supp (1) SCC 349, D. K. Jain Vs. State of Haryana. ( 31 ) SRI Amit Bose has further submitted that the Parliament has legislative competence under the Scheme of Constitution of India to enact the Multi State Cooperative Society Act of 1984 and 2002. These shall hold field as its vires has remained unchallenged. Thus, these enactments are constitutional , legal and valid. He has placed reliance on the judgments reported in (1971) 2 SCC 779 , Union of India Vs. Shri Haribhajan Singh Dhillon, (1994) 3 SCC 569 , Kartar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1985) 3 SCC 620 , M/s khandelwal Metal and Engineering Works Vs. Union of India, (1983)1 SCC 51 , S. P. Mittal Vs. Union of India, (1994) 5 SCC 52 , Gainda ram Vs. M. C. D. , (1979) 4 SCC 232 , M/s Satpal and Company Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 707, Goodricke Group Limited vs. State of W. B. , (1998) 2 SCC 109 , Naga Peoples Movement of human Rights Vs. Union of India, (2002) 5 SCC 203 , State of A. P. Vs. National Thermal Power Corporation Limited , (1980) 4 SCC 295 , thumati Venkaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 1 SCC 287 , krishna Bhimarao Deshpande Vs. Land Tribunal , Dharwad and (2002) 9 SCC 232 ITC Limited Vs. Agriculture Produce Market committee to press his point. ( 32 ) SRI Raghvendra Singh learned counsel has put in appearance in writ petition nos. 5749 (M/s) of 2003, 1072 (M/b) of 2003, 1496 (M/b) of 2003, 142 (M/b) of 2001 and 4370 (M/b) of 2002 for the petitioners. He has raised similar points which have already been canvassed by Sri Rakesh Srivastava, Sri Amit Bose , Sri J. N. Mathur and Sri R. C. Tewari etc. He has reiterated the arguments placed by these learned counsel. He has raised similar points which have already been canvassed by Sri Rakesh Srivastava, Sri Amit Bose , Sri J. N. Mathur and Sri R. C. Tewari etc. He has reiterated the arguments placed by these learned counsel. Sri Singh has further added that the State Legislature of U. P. now ceased to have jurisdiction to legislate for the Multi State Cooperative Societies as per list II Entry 32 and Article 248 of the Constitution of India in the light of Ram raksha Tripathis case reported in 1995 (2) UPLBEC,1290. The societies for which he is appearing have now become Multi State cooperative Societies and shall now be governed by Multi State cooperative Society Act 1984 as amended upto date. The decisions taken against the interest of his clients Sri Angan Lal , Sri I. P. Singh and Santosh Kumar Bhatt etc under the U. P. Cooperative societies Act 1965 are null and void. He has stressed in his arguments that the societies earlier governed by the U. P. Cooperative Society Act 1965 although not registered as Multi state Cooperative Society had automatically become a Multi State cooperative Societies under Section 95 of the Multi State cooperative Societies Act by legal fiction. The provisions of registration as defined in Section 3 (p) shall not come into play in such a Multi Cooperative Society. The interest of State of U. P. shall always be taken care of by a State Nominee. He has placed reliance on the judgment reported in A. I. R. 1959 Supreme Court 352, Commissioner of Income Tax ,delhi Vs. S. Teji Singh and (1995)2 UPLBEC 1290 Ram Raksha Tripathi Vs. Union of India and others to highlight his arguments. ( 33 ) SRI Vikas Singh learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 4 in writ petition No. 3439 (M/b) of 2002of 2002 filed by committee of Management, U. P. Postal Primary Co-operative Bank limited has requested for summoning the petitioner for petitioner no. 2 Hemant Kumar for committing forgery and has sought dismissal of the writ petition. He is holding appearing brief for Sri badri Vishal, the opposite party no. 4. According to him, the writ petition was filed in the State of Uttaranchal raising the same dispute. He has further submitted that a similar writ petition no. 2868 (M/b) of 2001, Badri Vishal and other Vs. He is holding appearing brief for Sri badri Vishal, the opposite party no. 4. According to him, the writ petition was filed in the State of Uttaranchal raising the same dispute. He has further submitted that a similar writ petition no. 2868 (M/b) of 2001, Badri Vishal and other Vs. Registrar U. P. has been dismissed by this Court on 4. 7. 2001. According to him, petitioner no. 2 had committed forgery. The petitioners have concealed the material facts from this Court and has tried to mislead the Court. He has cited several judgments in this regards which are as follows. According to these judgments in the above said circumstances, writ petitions can not be entertained and deserve to be dismissed. 1. Mahesh Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U. P. and others in writ petition no. 5171 (M/b) of 2002 2. 1980 UPLBEC 202 Virendra Pal Singh Vs. District registrar, Cooperative Societies 3. AIR 1972 (Allahabad) 149, Sultan Singh Vs. Assistant registrar 4. AIR 1993 SC 883 Krishna Vs. Land Tribunal 5. (1979) 4 SCC 642 Sri Swamijee Vs. Commissioner 6. AIR 1964 Supreme Court 777, M. Ramappa Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh 7. AIR 1970 Supreme Court 999, The Second Gift Tax Officer vs. D. S. Hazareth 8. AIR 1981 Supreme Court 774, M/s International Tourist corporation Vs. State of Haryana 9. (1991) 4 SCC 139 , State of U. P. Vs. Synthetics and chemicals and others 10. (2001) 3 SCC 537 , A-1 Granites Vs. State of U. P. and others 11. 2001 Vol. 5 SCC 289 Suo Motu Proceedings against R. Karuppan , Advocate 12. 1995 (1) HVD Ram Raksha Tripathi Vs. Union of India. Sri Vikas Singh, Advocate has requested the Court to dismiss the writ petition no. 3439 (M/b) of 2002 filed by the Committee of Management of U. P. Postal Primary cooperative Bank on the above said ground. This petiton is barred by law of "res judicata" also. The writ petitioner has mislead this Court by filing this petition. In the rejoinder, Dr. L. P. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the State of U. P. has brought to the notice of this Court, certain events which took place after filing of these writ petitions. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Uttaranchal has issued an order on 4. 12. The writ petitioner has mislead this Court by filing this petition. In the rejoinder, Dr. L. P. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the State of U. P. has brought to the notice of this Court, certain events which took place after filing of these writ petitions. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Uttaranchal has issued an order on 4. 12. 2002 directing that no work was to be assigned to u. P. PACSFED and other cooperative societies working in the State of U. P. The Registrar of Uttaranchal has also written letters to the central Registrar requesting him to cancel the registration of pacsfed saying that the cooperative societies registered in U. P. have ceased to operate in Uttaranchal State. The U. P. Consumer cooperative Federation had also requested for registration under the multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984. In this case, the director, Govt. of India dealing with the matter has sought no objection certificate and amended bye-laws, resolutions etc. from the said society and from concerned department of U. P. Government and asked to complete the required formalities for conversion and registration of the Societies. ( 34 ) SRI Misra has further pointed out that in case of registration of PACSFED with Central Registrar as a Multi Cooperative Society , no formalities were completed under the provisions of the Act of 1984 amending of bye-laws, passing of resolution and making formal request by the competent authorities of the society was required preceding Registration of the Society as per Section 5,6 ,7 and 8 of the said Act. ( 35 ) SRI Naresh Shanker Srivastava was removed from the committee of management of the society. Various letters issued by registrar, Cooperative Societies, Uttaranchal, Almora and Registrar, cooperative Societies, U. P. have been produced along with supplementary affidavit dated 7. 4. 2003 to demonstrate that M/s. PACSFED had ceased to be a Multi State Cooperative Society. It is now not operating in State of Uttaranchal. There is no element left in this society to treat it as a Multi Cooperative Society dr. L. P. Misra has further placed reliance on the new uttaranchal Act, 2003, pointing out various Sections of the said new act, Section 2,3, 4, 129 and 156 to impress upon the Court that these cooperative societies now have ceased to be registered as multi State Cooperative Societies. The new Act of 2003 has been promulgated on 21. 5. 2003. L. P. Misra has further placed reliance on the new uttaranchal Act, 2003, pointing out various Sections of the said new act, Section 2,3, 4, 129 and 156 to impress upon the Court that these cooperative societies now have ceased to be registered as multi State Cooperative Societies. The new Act of 2003 has been promulgated on 21. 5. 2003. It shall now operate in the State of uttaranchal and no society registered and operating in U. P. only can be registered or branded as Multi State Cooperative Society. None of these society have sought Registration under the Act in uttaranchal. The member of the Societies of Uttaranchal have also withdrawn from the membership of these Societies leaving them to operate in U. P. only. ( 36 ) SRI Rakesh Srivastava has filed an affidavit on 8. 4. 2004 and has tried to submit that the Registrar, Uttaranchal is acting malafidely on its own and he has no authority to issue such letters. However, it has been admitted by Sri Rakesh Srivastava that the member cooperative societies working in Uttaranchal have withdrawn themselves from the membership of M/s. PACSFED U. P. and other cooperative societies registered and operating in U. P. He has denied that there may be a case of deemed revocation of registration of PACSFED under these circumstances. According to him, the office of PACSFED is still continuing in Dehradun. ( 37 ) AFTER having heard learned counsel for the parties, perusing the material on record and written arguments etc. it has emerged that one group of learned counsel for the parties to litigation is emphasizing that as a result of the reorganization of the state of U. P. and carving out of Uttaranchal State on 9. 11. 2000, all the cooperative society which were having their areas of operations in kumaon and Garhwal regions of Uttar Pradesh have become Multi state Cooperative Societies. According to them, Multi State cooperative Societies Act, 1984 shall have application to these societies and not the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. Section 95 of the Multi State Cooperative Society Act, 1984 contains a deeming provision and it has created a legal fiction which has to be given full effect and should be carried to its logical consequences. The purpose of Section 95 is to continue the existence of these societies which have become Multi State Cooperative Society. Section 95 of the Multi State Cooperative Society Act, 1984 contains a deeming provision and it has created a legal fiction which has to be given full effect and should be carried to its logical consequences. The purpose of Section 95 is to continue the existence of these societies which have become Multi State Cooperative Society. ( 38 ) THE other group of learned counsel including the State of U. P. have vehemently denied this argument. According to them, pacsfed and other societies before this Court were created and registered under the provision of U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1915 and thereafter, U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 as amended from time to time. The Cooperative Societies is State subject covered by Entry 32 List II of the VIIth Schedule of the constitution of India. The law regulating the Cooperative Societies can be enacted by State Legislature only. After Reorganization of the State of U. P. , the area of operation of the society has now been reduced. The State of Uttaranchal has enacted its own Act, uttaranchal Cooperative Societies Act 2003. The societies have continued to operate in Uttaranchal State by virtue of Section 67 of the U. P. Reorganization Act,2000. Since the Societies were continuing to function and operate erstwhile in U. P. , these had continue to operate in newly created State of Uttaranchal also as per provisions contained in 67 of the aforesaid Act. Due to bifurcation of a State, the society does not automatically become a multi State Cooperative Society. The provisions and object of Section 95 has been misinterpreted. The PACSFED has not followed the due procedure provided in Multi State Cooperative Societies Act for its conversion and registration into a Multi State Cooperative Society. The registration certificate granted by the Central Registrar under section 8 was illegal and irregular as PACSFED has not followed the procedure and completed the formalities as provided under Sections 5,6 and 7 of the said Act of 1984. As per Section 86 and 87 of the u. P. Reorganization Act, the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act had rightly extended to the territories of the newly created State of uttaranchal to hold the field upto 21st may, 2003 on the creation of uttaranchal State Cooperative Societies Act. As per Section 86 and 87 of the u. P. Reorganization Act, the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act had rightly extended to the territories of the newly created State of uttaranchal to hold the field upto 21st may, 2003 on the creation of uttaranchal State Cooperative Societies Act. ( 39 ) AS far as the cooperative societies are concerned, it is clear from Entry 32, List II i. e. the State List, the cooperative society is a state subject for the purpose of legislation. The entries enumerated under List I i. e. the Union List, makes it amply clear that the cooperative societies have been specifically excluded from the subjects mentioned in the Union List. From the material available on record, pleadings of the parties and the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties it is evident that the State legislature of U. P. never expressed its desire and willingness to get a law, enactment made pertaining to cooperative societies by the parliament of India. After reorganization of the State of U. P. , the state Government has explicitly expressed its views, opinion that the multi State Cooperative Societies Act shall have no application to the affairs of the society and operation would continue to be governed by u. P. Cooperative Societies Act and the rules framed thereunder. ( 40 ) WE have gone through the submissions made by the State of u. P. in its writ petition No. 1710 (M/s) of 2002 State of U. P. Vs. Union of India and the counter affidavits filed in writ petition No. 5171 of 2002 (M/b), Mahesh Kumar Gupta and 7 others Vs. State of u. P. and other petitions. The State of U. P. has taken a clear stand and made a categorical statement that the U. P. Cooperative Societies act, 1965 and the rules made thereunder shall continue to govern the affairs of such cooperative societies which were registered in U. P. and were having their areas of operation in U. P. and thereafter in uttaranchal by virtue of Section 47 of U. P. Reorganization Act, 2000. The State Government and the, Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U. P. had taken the same stand before the Central Registrar, while seeking recall of the registration certificate issued in favour of pacsfed under Section 8 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies act, 1984. The State Government and the, Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U. P. had taken the same stand before the Central Registrar, while seeking recall of the registration certificate issued in favour of pacsfed under Section 8 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies act, 1984. It is abundantly clear from the draft of revision submitted to the Government of India by the State of U. P. and the correspondence made with the Chief Executives, Managing Directors of the Apex Cooperative Societies of U. P. These documents are on record. According to State of U. P. , Section 95 of Multi Cooperative society Act is not applicable on the cooperative societies, working in u. P. and Uttaranchal. ( 41 ) NOW we deal with the relevant provisions contained in U. P. Re-organization Act, 2000 in respect of the body corporate, local bodies, local authorities, State Corporations etc. constituted under the States enactment. The relevant provision of Section 67 of U. P. Re-organization Act, 2000 is quoted hereunder: - as follows: 67. General Provision as to statutory Corporations (1) Save as other wise expressly provided by the foregoing provisions of this part, where any body corporate constituted under a Central Act, State Act or provincial Act for the existing State of Uttar Pradesh or any part thereof has, by virtue of the provisions of part-II, become an inter-State body corporate, then the body corporate shall, on and from the appointed day, continue to function and operate in those areas in respect of which before that day, subject to such directions as may from time to time be issued by the central Government, until other provision is made by law in respect of the said body corporate. (2) Any direction issued by the Central Government under sub-section (1) in respect of any such body corporate shall include a direction that any law by which the said body corporate is governed shall, in its application to what body corporate, have effect subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be specified in the direction. " 6. that it is also submitted that Part-II of the Uttar Pradesh reorganization Act, 2000 does not make the opposite party no. 6 as a Multi State Cooperative Society in as much as the area of operation of the petitioner No. 1 which was "samasta Uttar pradesh" has been reduced and therefore it was wrong to infer that the opposite party no. 6 as a Multi State Cooperative Society in as much as the area of operation of the petitioner No. 1 which was "samasta Uttar pradesh" has been reduced and therefore it was wrong to infer that the opposite party no. 6 has become as Multi State cooperative Society. ( 42 ) THE State of Uttaranchal was carved out of State of U. P. on 9. 11. 2000. The relevant chapter II is quoted below: part-II reorganisation of the State of Uttar Pradesh 3. Formation of Uttaranchal State on and from the appointed day, there shall be formed a new state to be known as the State of Uttaranchal comprising the following territories of the existing state of Uttar Pradesh namely: -Pauri Garhwal, Tehri Garhwal, Uttar Kashi, Chamoli, dehradun, Nainital, Almora, Pithoragarh, Udham Singh Nagar, bageshwar, Champawat, Rudraprayag and Hardwar districts. And thereupon the said territories shall cease to form part of the existing state of Uttar Pradesh. 4. State of Uttar Pradesh and territorial divisions thereof:-On the from the appointed day, the state of Uttar pradesh shall comprise the territories of the existing state of Uttar Pradesh other than those specified in section 3. 5. Amendment of the First Schedule to the constitution:-On and from the appointed day, in the First schedule to the Constitution, under the heading "1. THE states": - (a) In the paragraph relating to the territories of the state of Uttar Pradesh, after the words, brackets and figures "clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Bihar and Uttar Pradesh (Alteration of boundaries ) Act, 1968", the following shall be inserted, namely:-"and the territories specified in Section 3 of the uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000. " (b) after entry 26, the following entry shall be inserted, namely:-"27. UTTARANCHAL: The territories specified in Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh reorganisation Act, 2000. " 6. Saving powers of State Government:-Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this part shall be deemed to affect the power of the government of Uttar Pradesh or Uttaranchal to alter, after the appointed day, the name, area or boundaries o any district or other territorial division in the State. "it is relevant to quote Section 93 of the aforesaid Act of 2000 for the purpose of adjudication of these cases. "93. "it is relevant to quote Section 93 of the aforesaid Act of 2000 for the purpose of adjudication of these cases. "93. Effect of provisions of the Act inconsistent with other laws:-The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other laws. "this Court has to consider the effect of the aforesaid Sections i. e. 67 and 93 and the applicability of Section 95 of the Central Act of the Multi State of Societies Act 1984. Section 95 of the Central Act 1984 is quoted below for proper appreciation of the case:-CHAPTER-VII societies WHICH BECOME MULTI STATE COOPERATIVE societies CONSEQUENT ON REORGANISATION 95. Cooperative societies functioning immediately before reorganization of State:- (1) where by virtue of the provisions of Part-II of the states Reorganization Act, 1956 (37 of 1956), or any other enactment relating to reorganization of states any cooperative society which immediately before the day on which the reorganization take place had its objects confined to one State becomes, as from that day, a multi state cooperative society, it shall be deemed to be a multi State cooperative society registered under the corresponding provisions of this Act and the bye-laws of such society shall, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act continue to be in force until altered or rescinded. (2) If it appears to the Central Registrar or any officer authorized in this behalf by the Central government (hereinafter in this section referred to as the authorized officer) that it is necessary or expedient to reconstitute or reorganize any society referred to in sub-section (1), the Central Registrar or the authorized officer, as the case may be, may with the previous approval of the Central government, place before a meeting of the general body of that society, held in such manner as may be prescribed, a scheme for the reconstitution or reorganization including proposals regarding:- (a) the formation of new Multi State Cooperative societies and transfer thereto in whole or part of the assets and liabilities of that society, or (b) the transfer, in whole or in part, of the assets and liabilities of that society to any other Multi state Cooperative Society in existence immediately before the date of that meeting of the general body (hereinafter in this section referred to as the existing Multi State cooperative Society ). 3. 3. If the scheme is sanctioned by a resolution passed by a majority of the members present at the said meeting, either without modification or with modifications to which the Central Registrar or the authorized officer agrees, he shall certify the scheme and such certification, the scheme shall, not withstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, regulation or bye-laws for the time being in force, be binding on all the societies affected by the scheme, as well as the share holders and creditors of all such societies. 4. If the scheme is not sanctioned under sub-section (3), the central Registrar or the authorized officer may refer the scheme to such Judge of the appropriate High Court, as may be nominated in this behalf by the Chief Justice thereof, and the decision of that Judge in regard to the scheme shall be final and shall be binding on all the societies affected by the scheme as well as the share holders and creditors of all such societies. Explanation:- In this sub-section "appropriate High court" means the High Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the principle place of business of the multi State Cooperative Society is situated. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where a scheme under sub-section (2) includes any proposal regarding the transfer of the assets and liabilities of any Multi State Cooperative Society referred to in clause (b) thereof, the scheme shall not be binding on such Multi State Cooperative Society or the share holders and creditors thereof, unless the proposal regarding such transfer is accepted by that Multi State cooperative Society by a resolution passed by a majority of the members present at a meeting of its general body. "the scheme of the above provision is clear that with the bifurcation of the State cooperative societies, apex societies shall not be subject to the provisions of Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984. The statutory rules, regulations and bye-laws framed under the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act shall not stand repealed. The U. P. State Reorganization Act does not contain any such provisions of repeal or of restricted applicability of the statutory provisions which were invoked at the time of reorganization of the States. The statutory rules, regulations and bye-laws framed under the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act shall not stand repealed. The U. P. State Reorganization Act does not contain any such provisions of repeal or of restricted applicability of the statutory provisions which were invoked at the time of reorganization of the States. Section 67 of U. P. Reorganization Act, 2000 as quoted above provides that where body corporate constructed under the Central Act, State Act or provincial Act for the existing State of U. P. or any part thereof has by virtue of the provisions of part II become an inter-state body corporate, then the body corporate shall on and from the appointed day continue to function and operative in those areas in respect of which it was functioning and operating immediately before that day subject to such directions as may from time to time be issued by the central Government , until other provision is made by law in respect of the said body corporate. Section 67 appears to have been enacted to handle such a situation. It is evident from the record that no direction as contemplated by Section 67 of the U. P. State Reorganization Act has been issued by the Central Government and as such the said section 67 shall be applicable in this situation. The State of U. P. as well as the State of Uttaranchal as per section 67 of U. P. Reorganization had never made any request to parliament for making laws with regard to the aforementioned cooperative Societies nor these State have adopted the Multi State cooperative Act 1984 or the Act of 2002. ( 43 ) IN view of above discussion and in the light of the arguments advanced by the parties before us, we are of the view that the Apex cooperative Societies operating in the State of U. P. proceeding 9. 11. 2000, the date of reorganization of the State and carving out of uttaranchal State, shall continue to operate in these two States by virtue of Section 67 of the U. P. Reorganization Act. These societies should have been governed by the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act 1965 as specifically contemplated by Section 86 read with Section 93 of the said Act unless and until a joint decision was taken by the two States and the bye laws of these societies were amended accordingly. These societies should have been governed by the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act 1965 as specifically contemplated by Section 86 read with Section 93 of the said Act unless and until a joint decision was taken by the two States and the bye laws of these societies were amended accordingly. Till date the bye laws of the societies were not amended, proper resolutionsproper wereresolutions were not passed and It cannot be said that that Multi State Cooperative societies Act could have started to occupy the field. The Multi state Cooperative Societies Act shall have no application till the nature of the societies is changed and the State Cooperative societies are duly converted into a Multi State Cooperative society after following due procedure as prescribed in a Multi State cooperative Societies Act 1984. Section 86 of this Act provides that the provisions of Part II shall not be deemed to have affected any change in the territories to which the imposition of Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1961, any law enforced immediately before the appointed day extends or applies and territories references in any such to the state of Uttar Pradesh shall until otherwise provided by a competent legislature or other competent authority be construed as meaning the territories within the existing state of Uttar Pradesh before the appointed day. Law is defined u/s 2 (f) of the said act. ( 44 ) THE Additional Advocate General appearing for the State has pointed out that there is now enactment by the State legislature adopting the provisions or a particular provision of Multi State cooperative Society Act and Section 93 of the U. P. State reorganization Act is specific provision dealing with the effect of the provision of the Act inconsistent with the other laws, which shall not effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law. We have already dealt with this point also. According to interpretation of statutes that "specific" would exclude the general, therefore in this case all the provisions of Multi state Cooperative Society Act attracted it, shall stand ousted because of the non-obpstante laws contained in Section 93 of the u. P. State Reorganization Act. The Multi State Cooperative Society act 2000. We agree with this submission that the provision of section 93 of the Reorganization Act 2000 has an overriding effect on any law containing inconsistent provisions. The Multi State Cooperative Society act 2000. We agree with this submission that the provision of section 93 of the Reorganization Act 2000 has an overriding effect on any law containing inconsistent provisions. The U. P. ( 45 ) REORGANIZATION Act 2000 has taken care of exigencies, events pursuant to the carving out of the new State from parent State of u. P. The provisions of U. P. Cooperative Societies Act have not stood repealed in any manner. Section 67 of the U. P. Reorganization Act 2000 has taken care of and saved the functioning and operation of the body corporate including the cooperative society, apex society and other bodies. ( 46 ) WE have taken note of submissions made by Sri Vinod Kumar singh, learned Additional Advocate General, U. P. that the State of uttaranchal has promulgated its own Cooperative Societies Act, known as Uttaranchal Cooperative Societies Act, 2003. It has come into effect on 21. 5. 2003. This act has been placed before this Court along with supplementary affidavit on 7. 4. 2004. According to learned Additional Advocate General, the State of Uttaranchal has now become a necessary party as provisions contained in this Act shall government of the cooperative society constituted within the boundary of State of Uttaranchal. M/s. PACSFED has already withdrawn its operation from the State of Uttaranchal. ( 47 ) UTTARANCHAL Government Vide an order dated 4. 12. 2002 and by other Government Order has restrained all subordinate authorities in assigning any work to PACSFED and other State level cooperative societies in the State of U. P. as the State of uttaranchal has got established its own State level cooperative societies including Apex Societies. Both the Registrars of U. P. and uttaranchal have written letters to Central Registrar asking for cancellation of registration of PACSFED. The registration of P. C. F. Society has already been cancelled by Central Registrar on 20. 11. 2002 as this Apex Society had decided to operate in the State of U. P. alone and in the Uttaranchal a separate Apex Society, uttaranchal Marketing Federation had already been formed. Thus, the PACSFED and other Cooperative societies which are litigating before this Court have no business left in the State of Uttaranchal. Due to promulgation of the Uttaranchal State Cooperative societies aforesaid Act of 2003, most of these the writ petitions haves become infructuous. Thus, the PACSFED and other Cooperative societies which are litigating before this Court have no business left in the State of Uttaranchal. Due to promulgation of the Uttaranchal State Cooperative societies aforesaid Act of 2003, most of these the writ petitions haves become infructuous. The cooperatives societies having its area of operation in Uttaranchal shall have to be registered with registrar, Cooperative Societies for the State of Uttaranchal. ( 48 ) THE arguments of Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, Additional Advocate general has substance. A reading of Uttaranchal Cooperative societies Act makes it clear that all the societies which are operating in the State of Uttaranchal including the societies which are parties to this litigation are to be governed by the said State Cooperatives societies Act of 2003. The State of Uttaranchal has also formed its own Apex Cooperative Societies. ( 49 ) THEREFORE, viewing the case from this angle also we are of the opinion that the provisions of the Multi State Cooperative Society Act shall not be applicable now w. e. f. 21. 5. 2003. As far as the registration of the cooperatives societies is concerned with Registrar, central Cooperative Societies Act, the matter deserves to be reviewed by the Registrar Central Cooperative Societies. None of the parties have brought to our notice that whether the cooperative societies claiming themselves to be Multi State Cooperative Societies have got themselves registered with Registrar, Cooperative Societies, State of uttaranchal or not. Our attention has been drawn to Section 129 of the said Act which quoted below:-129. (1) Any cooperative society existing on the date of coming into force of this Act and registered under the u. P. State Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 or under any other law relating to cooperative societies in force in the state of Uttaranchal shall be deemed to be registered under this Act and its bye-laws shall, so far as the same are not inconsistent with the express provisions of this act (or the rules made thereunder) continue in force until altered or rescinded according to the provisions of this act (and the rules made thereunder ). (2) Any cooperative to which sub - section (1) applied and which conforms to the requirements of Section 77 shall be deemed to be a cooperative farming society for the purposes of Chapter XI. (2) Any cooperative to which sub - section (1) applied and which conforms to the requirements of Section 77 shall be deemed to be a cooperative farming society for the purposes of Chapter XI. (3) Every co-operative society covered by sub-section (1) shall within a period of one year from the date of coming into force of this Act, delete or amend such bye-laws as are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and the rules and shall make such further bye-laws as may be necessary having regard to the provisions of this act and the rules. (4) In default of action on the party of any co-operative society as required by sub-section (3), the Registrar may make necessary amendment including deletions and additions in the bye-laws of the society. (5) Every co-operative society shall within a period of one year from the date of coming into force of this Act or such further period as the Registrar may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, allow for any co-operative society, adjust its membership according to the classification of members under this Act: provided that any existing member who cannot be adjusted into one or the other kinds of membership shall be deemed on the expiry of the period of one year or the extended period, if any, to have withdrawn from the membership of the society with the same rights and liabilities attached as if he had withdrawn from membership before the coming into force of this Act. (6) Where a co-operative society fails to adjust membership as specified in sub-section (5), the Registrar may make the adjustment and direct as to who, if any, of the existing members shall be deemed to have withdrawn their membership under the provisi9ns of sub-section (5 ). (7) Every co-operative society shall within one year of the coming into force of this Act constitute its committee of management in accordance with the provisions of this act and the rules and in default thereof the Registrar shall in the manner prescribed constitute the committee of management. (7) Every co-operative society shall within one year of the coming into force of this Act constitute its committee of management in accordance with the provisions of this act and the rules and in default thereof the Registrar shall in the manner prescribed constitute the committee of management. (8) Notwithstanding, anything in this Act no act or proceeding of a co-operative society or its committee of management shall be invalid or questioned in court merely on the ground that up to the time of adjustment of membership or re-constitution of the committee of management in accordance with the provisions of this section the membership of the society or the constitution of its committee of management was inconsistent with the provisions of this Act or the rules. We have gone through the Uttaranchal Cooperative Societies act. It has taken care of all the affairs of the cooperative societies functioning in the State of Uttaranchal. In view of the scheme of this Act also, we find that M/s. PACSFED has now ceased to be a Multi State Cooperative Society. Its member cooperative societies operating in the State of uttaranchal withdrawn themselves from the membership of this apex society as defined in Section 123 of U. P. Cooperative Societies act, 1965. ( 50 ) TAKING note of the changed scenario and the circumstances, this Court is of the view that since the State of Uttaranchal is now having its own Cooperative Societies, the erstwhile such societies of the State of Uttar Pradesh which continued to operate in uttaranchal by virtue of Section 67 of the Re-organization Act shall now have their areas of operation confined to State of U. P. alone. These cannot be treated to be as Multi State Cooperative Societies any longer and to be governed by Multi State Cooperative Societies act unless and until so declared by the Central Registrar under the provisions of Multi State Cooperative Societies Act after consultation with the Registrars of the two States and a conscientious decision is taken by the two Governments after following due procedure as prescribed in Multi State Cooperative Societies Act 1984. A formal conversion shall be required as per relevant provisions of the Multi state Cooperative Act before treating the said Cooperative to be multi State Society. . A formal conversion shall be required as per relevant provisions of the Multi state Cooperative Act before treating the said Cooperative to be multi State Society. . ( 51 ) SRI Rakesh Srivastava, Sri Raghvendra Singh and Sri Amit bose, learned counsel have not addressed the Court about the effect of the applications of the laws cited by them on the status of employees, workers of the societies operating in U. P. or Uttaranchal. We make it clear that we are not settling the controversy regarding constitutional validity of Multi State Cooperative Society act 1984. Presently, this Court is not required by the parties to adjudicate upon the constitutional validity of the said Act. It is evident from the record that that State Legislature of U. P. had never expressed its desire and willingness to get a law made pertaining to its cooperative societies by the Parliament. The State of U. P. has categorically submitted before this Court that Multi State cooperative Societies Act shall have no application to the affairs of its society and the apex Cooperative Society should continue to be governed by its own U. P. Cooperative Societies Act 1965 and the rules of 1968 made thereunder. The State Legislature had never passed any resolution stating that it desired the Parliament to make a law in respect of certain cooperative societies operating in uttar Pradesh. ( 52 ) THE U. P. Legislature has never adopted theadopted the Multi state Cooperative Societies Act 1984. The law is well settledwell settled that the power topower to legislate onlegislate on the subject ofsubject of Cooperative Societies issocieties is the mater within the competence of the State Legislature. This Courtthis court has already taken note of its earlier decisions in Sultan singh Vs. Assistant Registrar, AIR 1972 Alld,149 and the decision rendered by Honble the Supreme Court of India in Virendra Pal singh Vs. District Assistant Registrar Cooperative Society, 1980 uplbec 202 and in Krishna Bhimrao Deshpande Vs. Land Tribunal 1993 SC 883. It has been held in these cases that passing of resolutions by two or more State Legislatures is a condition precedent for vesting power under Article 252 of the Constitution of india. Section 95 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act cannot override the provisions of the Constitution. The provision of Section 95 will only apply if Article 252 of the Constitution is applicable. Section 95 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act cannot override the provisions of the Constitution. The provision of Section 95 will only apply if Article 252 of the Constitution is applicable. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is abundantly clear that Article 252 of the Constitution is not at all applicable as the U. P. State Legislature never resolved for application of Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, under Article 252 of the Constitution of India. ( 53 ) IN view of the above discussion, the writ petition no. 5171 (M/b) of 2002, Mahesh Kumar Gupta and others Vs. State of u. P. and others is allowed. A writ of certiorari is issued, quashing the resolution dated 29. 7. 2002 contained in Annexure no. 5 , election processes initiated by Election Officer vide order dated 12. 8. 2002 contained in Annexure no. 10 and the order dated 17. . 8. 2002 passed by the Deputy Registrar as contained in Annexure no. 9 to the writ petition. The opposite parties no. 1 and 2 are directed to conduct the affairs of the U. P. Cooperative ( Processing and Cold storage) Federation Limited Lucknow including constitution of its board of Directors/ Committee of Management in accordance with the provisions of U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 and the Rules and Regulations framed thereudner. It is held that the U. P. Processing and Cold Storage Federation Ltd is not a Multi State cooperative Society and hence the provision of the Multi State cooperative Societies Act,1984 will have not application to it and this apex society will continue to remain governed by the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act 1965 and Rules made thereunder. The consequences shall follow. We direct the authorities concerned i. e. Registrar Cooperative Society U. P. to arrange for election for constitution of Committee of Management of the Society at the earliest. Till election process is competed ,completed, the Registrar cooperative Societies may make necessary appropriate arrangements to run the affairs of the society. ( 54 ) THE writ petition no. 602 (M/s) of 2002, U. P. Cooperative processing and Cold Storage and another Vs. Union of India and writ petition no. 1710 (M/s) of 2002 State of U. P. and another Vs. Union of India and others are allowed. The impugned order dated 5. 2. 2002 and the certification of registration dated 14. 02. 602 (M/s) of 2002, U. P. Cooperative processing and Cold Storage and another Vs. Union of India and writ petition no. 1710 (M/s) of 2002 State of U. P. and another Vs. Union of India and others are allowed. The impugned order dated 5. 2. 2002 and the certification of registration dated 14. 02. 2001 passed by the Central Registrar are quashed. The writ petition no. 1072 (M/b) of 2003, Angan Lal and another Vs. State of U. P. , writ petition no. 1496 (M/b) of 2003, Hayat singh Mahara and another Vs. State of U. P. and others, writ petition no. 142 (M/b) of 2001, I. P. Singh Vs. State of U. P. and others, writ petition no. 3439 (M/b) of 2001 Committee of Management, U. P. Postal Primary Co-operative Bank and another Vs. State of U. P. and others , Writ petition no. 5671 (M/b) of 2002, U. P. Postal Primary cooperative Bank Ltd. and another Vs. Union of India and others, writ Petition no. 5749 (M/b) of 2003 Committee of Management uttar Pradesh Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. and another Vs. State of U. P. and another, writ petition no. 4370 (M/b) of 2002, Santosh kumar Bhatt Vs. State of U. P. and others , writ petition no. 3820 (M/b) of 2002 Committee of Management U. P. Bank Employee credit Cooperative Society Ltd Vs. State of U. P. and others, writ petition no. 1261 (M/b) of 2001, Hamant Kumar Vs. Registrar cooperative Societies and others , writ petition no. 289 (M/b) of 2004 jugal Kishore Agarwal Vs. State of U. P. and others and writ petition no. 4999 (M/b) of 2000 Jugul Kishore Agarwal Vs. State of U. P. and others are dismissed. The U. P. Cooperative Bank Lucknow, U. P. Cooperative Processing and Cold Storages Federation ltd (PACSFED),the U. P. Primary Postal Cooperative Bank and the u. P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Limited are to be governed by the provisions of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act,1965 and the rules of 1968 made thereunder.