This writ petition has been filed challenging the legality of the order passed by the Secretary (Co-operation), Govt. of Manipur on 12.4.1993 in Appeal Case No. 3 of 1997 and praying for quashing it. 2. The brief facts leading to this writ petition are as follows:- An appeal under section 152 of the Manipur Co-Operative Societies, 1976 was filed by the private respondents in this writ petition challenging the issuance of Certificate of Registration bearing No. 1/1997-1998 dated 21 st August, 1997 in the name and style ' The Manipur State Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes Development Co-Operative Limited' and praying for staying the operation of the said Certificate of Registration pending the disposal of the appeal. The present petitioner filed Misc. Case No. 1 of 1999 raising the question of maintainability of the appeal on various grounds and praying for hearing the said question as preliminary issue. The parties were heard apparently in respect of the said Misc. Case. However, the Secretary (Co-Operative) Govt. of Manipur came to a conclusion that the appeal was infructuous because of the lack of jurisdiction of the registering authority as also of the appellate authority in view of the circular of the RBI for registration of a Co-Operative Bank. Thereafter, the Secretary (Co-Operation), Manipur dismissed the appeal and at the same time, gave directions that RCS should take up corrective action in connection with the letter being No. 924/08.01.08/98-99 dated 9.3.1999 of the Deputy General Manager, RBI, Central Office and that the Registrar, Co-Operative Societies would report the progress of the case and other similar cases to the Government so as to avoid complicacies in future. 3. The grievances of the writ petitioners are that the parties were heard only in respect of the question of maintainability of the appeal raised in the said Misc. Case and not the merit of the appeal and that though, the appeal was dismissed on the ground of absence of jurisdiction of the appellate authority, many directions which were never considered in that appeal were issued. 4. On perusal of the materials before the court, I am satisfied that the said appeal was disposed of on merit without hearing the parties in respect of the merit of the appeal. Thus, the Secretary (Co-Operative), Manipur proceeded with the appeal and disposed it of without complying with the principles of natural justices. 4. On perusal of the materials before the court, I am satisfied that the said appeal was disposed of on merit without hearing the parties in respect of the merit of the appeal. Thus, the Secretary (Co-Operative), Manipur proceeded with the appeal and disposed it of without complying with the principles of natural justices. Further, it was not proper on the par of the Secretary (Co-0perative), Manipur to give those directions in connection with the matter even after making the finding to the effect that he was not having jurisdiction to deal with it. Despite the said Misc. Application, if the Secretary (Co-Operative), Manipur considered that the appeal could be disposed of on merit, he should have heard the parties on the merit of the appeal. 5. In the result, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and if it is not interfered with, mis-carriage of justice will be caused. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The Secretary (Co-Operative), Manipur is to proceed with the said appeal No.3 of 1997 afresh and due opportunity of being heard should be given to both sides before disposing of it on merit. 6. With this direction and order, this writ petition stands disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Secretary (Co-Operative), Manipur for information and necessary action. Since this appeal is an old one, the Secretary (Co-Operative), Manipur will have to proceed with it expeditiously according to law.