Judgment (Per : Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawar, J.) For the reasons stated, Delay Condonation Application No. 5913 of 2008 is allowed. The delay in filing the review application is condoned. The review application shall be treated to be filed in time. 2. The Review Petitioner has filed the Civil Misc. Review No. 1052/2008 for reviewing the judgment dated 30.07.2008 passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 343 of 2008 (M/B), 344 of 2008 (M/B) and 353 of 2008 (M/B)* by which it has been held by this Court that the Administrator of the Management Committee has no right to get the areas of the society or the village to re-determine for the purpose of election; the Administrator appointed by the Registrar cannot enroll new members for the election; he cannot change the composition of the society; and he cannot make delimitation of the election areas by adjusting the revenue villages from one society to another society. 3. Mr. Arvind Vashist, Advocate appearing for the review petitioner contended that the above findings recorded by this Court in para 5 and 6 of the judgment under review are based on the statement made by the Chief Standing Counsel and the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jt. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kerala Vs. T.A. Kuttappan & others 2000 (6) SCC 127. Learned counsel further contended that Section 29(1) of the Uttaranchal Coopertaive Societies Act provides that the management of every co-operative society shall vest in Committee of Management constituted in accordance with this Act, the rules and the bye-laws. Sub-section (6) of Section 29 provides that the Administrator or the Committee appointed under sub-section (5) shall, subject to any directions which the Registrar may from time to time give, have the power to perform all or any of the functions of the Committee of Management or of any officer of the society and shall be deemed for all purposes under this Act, the rules and the bye-laws of the society to be the Committee Management and the Chairman of such Committee shall exercise the powers and perform the functions of the Chairman of the Committee of management. It was further contended that perusal of the statutory fiction reveals that the Administrator has been conferred all the powers of the Management committee and it cannot be said that the Administrator has no power to induct new members; Section 35 of the Cooperative Societies Act provides for the supersession or suspension of the Committee of Management and sub-section (5) of Section 35 provides that the Committee or Administrators appointed under sub-section (3) and (4) shall, subject to any directions which the Registrar may from time to time give, have the power to exercise all or any of the functions of the Committee of Management or of any officer of the society and shall be deemed for all purposes under this Act. The finding was based upon the judgment of T.A. Kuttappan (supra) in which the power of Administrator of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act has been defined. The provisions of Kerala Cooperative Societies Act are substantially different from the provisions of the Uttarakhand Cooperative Societies Act, as such, the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court is not applicable in Uttarakhand. Thus, the judgment dated 30.07.2008, which is under review, suffers from error apparent on the face of record. 4. Mr. Alok Singh, Senior Advocate appearing for the Committee of Management, Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti ltd. (writ petitioners) contended that the Committee of Management constituted under the Act can exercise all powers conferred under the Act. Thus, the judgment dated 30.07.2008, which is under review, suffers from error apparent on the face of record. 4. Mr. Alok Singh, Senior Advocate appearing for the Committee of Management, Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti ltd. (writ petitioners) contended that the Committee of Management constituted under the Act can exercise all powers conferred under the Act. Rules and Bye-laws, whereas the Administrator appointed by the Registrar can only exercise those powers which are assigned to him under the directions of the Registrar and the Administrator has no power to exercise all powers and functions of the elected Committee of Management; sub-section (1) of Section 29 of the Uttaranchal Cooperative Society Act provides that the Management of Committee can exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be conferred or imposed by this Act; sub-section (6) of Section 29 provides that the powers of the Administrator or the Committee shall be the subject to the directions of the Registrar; and the object of the appointment of the Administrator under sub-section (5) of Section 29 is to ensure the election of the Committee of Management as soon as possible, but in any event not less than expiry of one year; sub-section (5) of Section 29 provides that from the date of supersession of the elected Management of Committee till the election of new Management Committee the Administrator can only ensure the fair election to constitute new Committee of Management and to hold election as per the available list of members from the existing constituencies. He cannot exercise all the functions of elected Committed of Management, as such, the findings of this Court in para 5 of the judgment under review do not suffer from error apparent on the face of the record. 5. Learned Advocate General for the State Government supported the contentions of Mr. Arvind Vashist, Advocate for the review petitioner and contended that by virtue of Section 29 and 35 of the Uttaranchal cooperative Societies Act it is clear by the statutory fiction that the Administrator has been conferred all powers of the Management Committee and thus it cannot be said that the Administrator has no power to induct new members. Arvind Vashist, Advocate for the review petitioner and contended that by virtue of Section 29 and 35 of the Uttaranchal cooperative Societies Act it is clear by the statutory fiction that the Administrator has been conferred all powers of the Management Committee and thus it cannot be said that the Administrator has no power to induct new members. He further contended that sub-clause (4) to (8) of Rule 450 of the Uttaranchal Cooperative Societies Rules, 2004 provides that the Registrar has the power to re-determine the number of constituencies in which the area of operation of the society shall be divided; the extent of area of each constituency; the total number of seats allotted to each constituency; and the number of seats reserved for weaker sections. Thus, the Registrar has statutory power to re-determine the constituencies and areas. 6. It is apparent from the perusal of latter part of Section 29(6) and Section 35(5) of the Uttarakhand Cooperative Societies Act that the Legislature has further conferred the powers of the Management Committee to the Administrator by providing additional power by legal fiction. This Court recorded the findings in the judgment under review while relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in T.A. Kuttapan (supra) in which it has been held that the Administrator has no power to admit new members and the Administrator has no right to get the areas of the societies or the village to re-determine for the purpose of election and the Administrator appointed by the Registrar cannot enroll new members for the election or he cannot change the composition of the societies. For the sake of convenience, we are reproducing the provisions of the Cooperative Societies of the State of Karnataka, Kerala and Uttaranchal (now ‘Uttarakhand’) in the following chart : Section 30(2) of the Karnataka Act “30(2). The administrator so appointed shall, subject to the control of the Registrar and such instructions as he may give from time to time, exercise all or any of the functions of the committee or of any officer of the cooperative society and take such action as he may consider necessary in the interest of the society.” Section 30-A of the Karnataka Act “30-A. Appointment of Special Officer. – (1) Where the State Government, on a report made to it by the Registrar or otherwise, is satisfied that any cooperative society is not functioning in accordance with the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder or its bye-laws or any order, direction or circular issued by the State Government or the Registrar, it may notwithstanding anything in this Act, by order, appoint a Special Officer for such cooperative society for such period not exceeding two year : Provided that the State Government may, if it considers it necessary extend the said period of two years by such further period not exceeding one year. (3) The Special Officer shall, subject to the control of the State Government and the Registrar, exercise and perform all the powers and functions of the committed of the cooperative society or any officer of the Cooperative Society and take all such actions as may be required in the interest of the cooperative society.” Section 32(4) of the Kerala Act “32(4). The committee or administrator or administrators so appointed shall, subject to the control of the Registrar and to such instructions as he may from time to time give, have power to exercise all or any of the functions of the committee or of any officer of the society and take such action as may be required in the interest of the society.” Section 29(6) of Uttarakhand Act. 29(6). The Administrator or the Committee appointed under Sub Section (5) shall, subject to any directions which the Registrar may from time to time give, have the power to perform all or any of the functions of the Committee of Management or of any officer of the society and shall be deemed for all purposes under this Act, the rules and the bye-laws of the society to be the Committee of Management and the Chairman of such Committee shall exercise the powers and perform the functions of the Chairman of the Committee of Mana-gement. “Section 35. Sueprses-sion or suspension of the Committee of Manage-ment. 35(5). “Section 35. Sueprses-sion or suspension of the Committee of Manage-ment. 35(5). The Committee, administrator or admi-nistrators appointed under sub-section (3) and (4) shall, subject to any directions which the Registrar may from time to time give, have the power to exercise all or any of the functions of the Committee of Management or of any officer of the society and shall be deemed for all purposes under this Act, the rules and the bye-laws of the society to be the Committee of Management.” 7. The highlighted portions of the Uttaranchal Act clearly provide that the Administrator shall be deemed for all purposes under this Act, the rules and the bye-laws of the society to be the Committee of Management and the Chairman of such Committee shall exercise the powers and perform the functions of the Chairman of the Committee of Management. The Karnataka and Kerala Act had no such provision in the State Enactment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with this issue in the case of T.A. Kuttappan (supra) held that there is no need to explore the difference in the meaning of the expressions “have power to exercise all or any of the functions of the committee” in the Kerala Act and “exercise all or any of the functions of the committee” in the Karnataka Act as they are not different and are in substance one and the same and difference in language will assume no importance. Thus, the interpretation of the Hon’ble Apex Court is related to the first part of the Uttaranchal Act which is in pari material to Karnataka and Kerala Act. What is of significance in the Uttaranchal Cooperative Societies Act is that the above highlighted portion of Section 29(6) provides a legal fiction empowering the Administrator or the Committee appointed by the Registrar to be the Committee of Management and to act in furtherance of Committee of Management. This is the basic difference between the Kerala, Karanataka and Uttaranchal Act. In Uttarakhand, the purpose behind authorizing the Administrator is not only to work in Uttarakhand under the directions of Registrar or to act as a stop-gap arrangement but also he has to act in furtherance of the common object of the Cooperative Societies Act as enshrined under the provisions of the Act. In Uttarakhand, the purpose behind authorizing the Administrator is not only to work in Uttarakhand under the directions of Registrar or to act as a stop-gap arrangement but also he has to act in furtherance of the common object of the Cooperative Societies Act as enshrined under the provisions of the Act. Section 29(6) and Section 35(5) of the Uttaranchal Cooperative Societies Act clearly reveal that the Administrator or the Committee appointed by the Registrar has all the powers vested in the Committee of Management. The elected Committee of Management has the power to enroll new members as provided under the Act. It is thus clear that by a statutory fiction, the Administrator has been conferred all the powers of Management Committee and thus the Administrator has the power to enroll new members also. 8. Mr. Alok Singh, Senior Advocate appearing for the writ petitioners contended that the review petition is not legally maintainable by and on behalf of the review petitioner – Paniyala Shram Sambida Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Because the review petitioner was not a party in the aforesaid writ petitions filed by the Committee of Management; and merely because the review petitioner was a party as respondent in the Writ Petition No. 1565 of 2008 (M/S) titled as “Vijendra Singh Vs. State & others” and the learned Single Judge while disposing of the aforesaid writ petition on 11.09.2008 placed reliance on the judgment under review, the review petitioner has no locus and cannot challenge the judgment under review. The review petitioner could have challenged the validity in appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No. 1565 of 2008 (M/S) and if the bench would have felt in necessary the matter could have been referred to the larger bench expressing the doubt over the judgment under review. Mr. Arvind Vashisht, Advocate appearing for the review petitioner contended that the review petitioner became a member of the District Cooperative Bank; his society qualifies as a voter as provided under Rule 433 of the Cooperative Society Rules and his right to participate in the elections of Directors and other posts in the District Cooperative Bank, Haridwar was not affected by the appointment of the Administrator due to the dissolution of Management Committee of District Cooperative Bank, Haridwar. 9. 9. It is well settled proposition of law that any person considering himself to be aggrieved against an order can apply for review of the judgment to the Court and the Court may pass such orders thereon as it deems fit. The review petitioner has filed the present Review Petition in this Court on 06.09.2008 and the Writ Petition No. 1565 of 2008 (M/S), in which the review petitioner was a party as respondent, was decided by the learned Single Judge on 11.09.2008 during the pendency of the review petition. Mr. Arvind Vashisht, Advocate for the review petitioner stated at Bar that he also indicated in the counter affidavit filed in W.P. No. 1565 of 2008 (M/S) that he had already moved an application for review of the judgment dated 30.07.2008 on which the learned Single Judge has relied upon. The said position is not disputed by Mr. Alok Singh, Senior Advocate for the writ petitioners. It is also pertinent to mention here that in the aforesaid W.P. No. 1565 of 2008 (M/S) the review petitioner was one of the respondents and the said writ petition was filed for seeking writ in the nature of mandamus quashing the order dated 29.08.2008 passed by Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, whereby composition of electoral college is changed; further seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to hold elections of the District Cooperative Bank, without permitting the newly elected members inducted by the Administrator, to vote and without change in the composition of the societies. The learned Single Judge while delivering the judgment observed as under :- “3. On behalf of the petitioners attention of this Court is drawn to the judgment and order dated 30.07.2008, passed by Division Bench of this Court in writ petition no. 343 of 2008 (M/S), Committee of Management Vs. State of Uttarakhand, and also to the principle of law laid down by the Apex Court in Joint Registrar of Cooperative Society Vs. T.A. Kuttappan (2000) 6 Supreme Court Cases Pg. 127, and it is argued that the Administrator appointed by the State has no right to induct new societies as members of District Cooperative Bank, Haridwar, just before the elections. “4. T.A. Kuttappan (2000) 6 Supreme Court Cases Pg. 127, and it is argued that the Administrator appointed by the State has no right to induct new societies as members of District Cooperative Bank, Haridwar, just before the elections. “4. During arguments, attention of this Court is drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the letter No. C52/fuokZo&lañdkñ 2008-09, dated 29.08.2008, issued by Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Uttarakhand, whereby all the Assistant Registrars, Cooperative Societies of the Districts of the State have been directed not to permit the newly enrolled societies to participate in the elections scheduled to be held on 18/19.09.2008. By the same order, it has further been directed that no change in the area and composition of the societies during the period of Administrator, be made. 5. In view of the above development, the prayer made in the writ petition gets answered by the State and new members Societies inducted by the Administrator, cannot participate in the elections scheduled to be held for District Cooperative Bank, Haridwar on 18/19.09.2008. 6. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of summarily with the above observation. (Interim relief application No. 5463 of 2008), also stands disposed of).” 10. Thus, it is clear from perusal of the above judgment that the Government issued the letter in pursuance to the judgment passed in these writ petitions which is under review, as such, there was no need to proceed with Writ Petition No. 1565 of 2008 (M/S). The petition was disposed of accordingly by the learned Single Judge. The review petition was already pending before this Court. It is apparent that the review petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment under review. After due consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any force in contention of Mr. Alok Singh, Senior Advocate for the writ petitioners. We are completely in agreement with the submissions of Mr. Arvind Vashisht, Advocate for the review petitioner. 11. Rule 450 of the Cooperative Society Act, 2004 provides as under :- “450(4). Alok Singh, Senior Advocate for the writ petitioners. We are completely in agreement with the submissions of Mr. Arvind Vashisht, Advocate for the review petitioner. 11. Rule 450 of the Cooperative Society Act, 2004 provides as under :- “450(4). For purpose of election of members of Committee of Management of a cooperative society, or as the case may be, of Delegates to General Body of a co-operative society, the Registrar shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the bye-laws of the society before the issue of notice under sub-Rule (2) of Rule 451 for election of a Cooperative Society, or as the case may be, of a class of cooperative society determine provisionally :- (a) the number of constituencies in which the area of operation of the society shall be divided. (b) the extent of area of each constituency. (c) the total number of seats allotted to each constituency. (d) the number of seats reserved for weaker sections. 450(5). The Registrar shall thereupon publish in local daily newspaper, the provisional determination made under Sub-Rule (4) for inviting objections within seven days from the date of such publication. A copy thereof shall also be sent to the concerned society for its comments. (6) The criteria for determination of constituency may be any one or more of the following namely : (i) Revenue or areas (ii) Class or classes of membership (iii) Other rational basis in relation to area of operation of society. Provided that the unit of determination in case of primary agricultural credit society shall as far as possible be one or more Gram Sabhas falling in the area of operation of the society. (7) The objections and comments received under Sub-Rule (5) shall be considered by the Registrar on the thirteenth day of such publication and thereafter he shall finally determine the constituencies, total number of seats and the number of seats reserved for the weaker sections as referred in Clauses (a) to (d) of Sub Rule (4). (8) The final determination of the constituencies under Sub rule (7) shall be published in the local daily newspaper on the 15th day of such publication and a copy thereof shall be sent to the concerned society and the District Magistrate concerned. (8) The final determination of the constituencies under Sub rule (7) shall be published in the local daily newspaper on the 15th day of such publication and a copy thereof shall be sent to the concerned society and the District Magistrate concerned. (9) Where by virtue of nomination made by the State Government under Sub section (1) of Section 34 of the Act, it becomes necessary to re-determine the constituency, the Registrar shall re-determine the constituency in the manner laid down in this rule at the time when election of elected members of the Committee of Management is to be held.” 12. Perusal of the aforesaid Rule clearly reveals that the Registrar of Cooperative Society will publish the provisional determination made under sub-rule (4) for inviting objections within seven days from the date of such publication. Thus, the constituencies have to be re-determined under the said Rule. It is the legal obligation of the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies to publish and determine the constituencies, as provided under Rule 450. Thus, these are the statutory powers of the Registrar under the Rules. While delivering the impugned judgment, the aforesaid legal position and other relevant provisions were not brought before this Court by the Chief Standing Counsel. 13. In view of the aforesaid proposition of law, the findings recorded in para 5 & 6 of the impugned judgment require to be reviewed. The findings recorded by this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 343 of 2008 (M/B), 344 of 2008 (M/B) and 353 of 2008 (M/B) suffer from error apparent on the face of it. We hold that the Administrator or the Committee appointed by the Registrar can enroll new members for the election and the Administrator has the power to re-determine the number of constituencies in which the area of operation of the society shall be divided; the extent of area of each constituency, the total number of seats allotted to each constituency and the number of seats reserved for weaker sections. In view of the above, the review petition is allowed and the findings recorded in the judgment under review is modified to the above extent.