JUDGMENT Mukul Mudgal, J. (Oral)- This writ petition challenges the order dated 5th December. 2005 passed by the office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The relevant portion of the said order of the Registrar reads as under: "Sub: Reply to representation regarding Special General Body Meeting held on 11.9.2005. Sir, Please refer to your letter dated 29.9.2005 on the subject cited above. In this regard, I am directed to inform you that the Special General Body Meeting held on 11.9.2005 is treated as null and void and violation of the directions of this office vide letter dated 4.3.2005. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (V.K. Bansal) Asstt. Registrar (NW)" 2. The relevant portion of the order dated 4th March 2005 reads as follows: "Sir. This office has received several complaints about issue of agenda items of the aforesaid general body meeting scheduled to be held on 6.3.2005 at 2.00 p.m. at the site of the Society. It is seen that there is rivalry between two groups and found making complaint against each other. I am directed to say that the Managing Committee of the Society should postpone the meeting Scheduled for 6.3.2005 and fresh SGBM be called to incorporate the no-confidence as one of the agenda items of the SGBM and it should be discussed as first item of agenda with the condition that if no confidence is passed against the Managing Committee, then other items will not be discussed. Shri B. M. Sethi, consultant/Ex-Dy. Registrar Co-operative Societies, is thereby appointed as Presiding Officer of he Special General Body Meeting of the Society. Further the Managing Committee of the Society should arrange to fix the date and time of Special General Body Meeting in consultation with Sh. B. S. Sethi and fresh Agenda to this effect be issued to all the members along with required necessary details. This is issued after duly approval of the worthy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Delhi. (Swaroop Singh) Asstt. Registrar N/W." 3. It is not in dispute that the order dated 4th March 2005 has not been challenged in any proceedings by the petitioner and still holds the field. Since the order dated 4th March, 2005 was not challenged by the petitioner, any order based upon the said order could not be successfully challenged in these proceedings. 4. Registrar N/W." 3. It is not in dispute that the order dated 4th March 2005 has not been challenged in any proceedings by the petitioner and still holds the field. Since the order dated 4th March, 2005 was not challenged by the petitioner, any order based upon the said order could not be successfully challenged in these proceedings. 4. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner thereafter submitted that this order could not have been passed under the provisions of Section 42 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act. 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") as the Government equity is not 51 % or above. Section 42 of the Act reads as follows: "42. Directions by the Registrar for successful conduct of business- The Registrar may from time-to-time issue such directions or directives to a co-operative society or a class of co-operative societies as he considers necessary for successful conduct of business and on all matters incidental thereto and such directions or directives shall be binding on them: Provided that this power shall be limited to co-operative society with Government equity of fifty-one per-centum or more," 5. The learned Counsel for the respondent Mr. Amit Andley, submitted that the said order was not passed under Section 42 nor is there any reference to Section 42 in the impugned order. The order according to him was passed under Section 37 of the Act which provides for the supersession of the Committee. The relevant portion of Section 37 of the Act reads as under: "Supersession of Committee-(1) If, in the opinion of the Registrar, the committee of any co-operative society (continuously makes default for ninety days) or is negligent in the performance of the duties imposed on it by or under this Act or the rules framed thereunder, the bye-laws or commits any act which is prejudicial to the interest of the co-operative society or its members or defies the directions issued by the Registrar under Section 42 of this Act or (fails to comply with the provisions of Section 92 or there is a stalemate in the constitution or function of the committee or fails to initiate recovery of the dues of the financing institution in spite of a notice issued to the co-operative society by the amount from members. to the financing institution to which the society is indebted within a period of ninety days). to the financing institution to which the society is indebted within a period of ninety days). the Registrar may after giving the committee an opportunity to state its objections, if any be order in writing direct- (a) to hold election of the committee within a period ofthil1y days by calling a special general body meeting; and (b) if in the opinion of the Registrar, the election of committee is not feasible under the prevailing circumstances, the Registrar shall pass an order in writing to remove the committee and appoint one or more administrators to manage the affairs of the co-operative society for a period nor exceeding one hundred and eighty days to be specified in the order, which period may, at the discretion of the Registrar be extended from time-to-time, (however. that the aggregate period does not exceed three hundred and sixty-five days." 6. Insofar as Section 37 of the Act is concerned, we arc in agreement with the plea raised by the tearned Counsel for the respondent that when the primary power even to supersede the society exists, the power to direct such a society to face a vote of no-confidence motion is inherent in such a power available under Section 37 of the Act and therefore the impugned order cannot held wrong. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere, the writ petition is dismissed and stands disposed of along with CM 9702/2006. Writ Petition dismissed.