Judgment :- Writ Petition by a member of second respondent-House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., who is fighting with his back to the wall to retain the membership of the society against the intention of the society and its committee of the management as well as the General Body to dismember the petitioner from the membership of the society. 2. Present Writ Petition is in the wake of such tussle between the petitioner and society and for getting over an order passed by Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 567/2008, as a Single Member of the Tribunal has in terms of an order dated 17.9.08 dismissal the appeal, Appeal had been preferred under Section 105 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, aggrieved with the view taken by the Joint Registrar of Societies in terms of his order dated 19.5.2008 passed in dispute No. JRB/MD/29/07 before him, holding that the dispute itself was not maintainable. 3. Petitioner had raised the dispute before the Registrar seeking for the following relief: (a) set aside the amendment made to the bye law in bye law No. 10(3) and 10 (5) as amended to the bye law of society and also set aside all consequential proceedings, including the Agenda No.10 proposed to be debated in the General Body which is scheduled to be held on 3/9/2005 declaring as void and clouded with malafides and allow this dispute with cost in the ends of justice and equity. 4. Being aggrieved by the amendments carried out to the bye laws of the society particularly by the addition of special clauses 3 and 5 of bye law of 10 which had been added by way of an amendment. The General Body of the society had approved the same after its resolution dated 29.4.2003 and the resolution elicited the approval of the Registrar as per order dated 27.1.2005 and the society armed by this amendment was in the process of dismembering the petitioner. One of the subjects on the agenda of the General Body Meeting scheduled to be held on 3.9.2006 as per item no.10 was to remove the petitioner from the membership of the society due to anti societal activities. 5. One of the subjects on the agenda of the General Body Meeting scheduled to be held on 3.9.2006 as per item no.10 was to remove the petitioner from the membership of the society due to anti societal activities. 5. The Registrar, who examined this dispute u/s 70 was of the view that dispute itself is not tenable particularly as the relief sought for was to set aside, an amendment to the bye law a proportion has passed by the General Body and has approved by the Registrar under the provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 12 of the Act. The Joint Registrar opined that a relief of this nature was not falling within the scope of Section 70 of the Act and therefore rejected the dispute. 6. It was against this order of rejecting the dispute itself, petitioner had appealed to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. Appellate Tribunal at the relevant time though comprised of the lone member has nevertheless dismissed the appeal being of the view that the Registrar was fully justified in rejecting the dispute as not maintainable and so also is the appeal before the Tribunal and therefore the appeal also having been dismissed by the Tribunal. (Copy produced at Annexure-L.) Present Writ Petition to get over these two orders. 7. Writ Petition itself was heard. Notice had been issued to the respondents. First respondent- Registrar is represented by Sri. H. Hanumantharayappa. Society itself is represented by Sri. Chandrashekaraiah. 8. With the consent of the counsel for parties petition is taken up for disposal. I have heard Sri. M.R. Rajagopal learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Chandrashekaraiah learned counsel for society and Sri. H. Hanumantharayappa appearing for the statutory authority, the Joint Registrar. 9. While Mr. M.R. Rajagopal learned counsel for petitioner would urge many contentions not only to submit that the order of the Registrar is bad, but also the order of the Tribunal dismissing the appeal, it may not be necessary to go into all these contentions except for examining the legality of the order passed by the Tribunal and which is characterized as an order contrary to the statutory provisions for the reason that a single member of the Tribunal cannot by himself dismiss an appeal under section 105 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. 10. In this regard learned counsel Sri. 10. In this regard learned counsel Sri. M.R. Rajagopal would draw attention to the provisions of section 6 of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Act 1976. It reads as under: “6. Conduct of business of the Tribunal: .(1) The powers of the Tribunal in all matters relating to appeals, revisions and other proceedings shall, subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) be exercised by a Bench of two members, of whom one shall be a District Judge, constituted by the Chairman. (2) A single member of the Tribunal may, subject to any special or general orders made in this behalf by the Chairman, exercise the powers of the Tribunal in respect of.- (i) admission of an appeal or revision, petition; (ii) admission of an appeal or revision petition presented after the expiry of the period allowed by law; (iii) stay orders pending disposal of an appeal, revision, reference or other proceedings; (iv) any matter of an interlocutory character in appeals, revisions, references or other proceedings; (v) such other matters and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. (3) The bench hearing any matter relating to.- (a) the Department of Co-operation, shall consist of,- (i) a District Judge; and (ii) a Co-operation Member (b) the Department of Commercial Taxes, shall consist of.- (i) a District Judge; and (ii) a Commercial Taxes Member. (4) x x x x x (5) Where an appeal, revision, reference or application is heard by a Bench, the appeal, revision, reference or application shall be decided in accordance with the opinion of the majority;” 11. It is submitted that while a single member is enabled to admit an appeal and also to grant orders of stay, a decision otherwise can be taken only by a Division Bench of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, a Division Bench comprising of learned District Judge and a Co-operation Member and therefore submits that the single member while could have admitted and granted stay of the order, is not enabled to dismiss the appeal, whether at the threshold or ultimately on hearing both sides. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the Tribunal is not tenable in law, it has to be set aside and the matter remitted to the Tribunal for proper examination of the appeal and for disposal on merits by the competent bench of the Tribunal. 13. On the other hand Sri. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the Tribunal is not tenable in law, it has to be set aside and the matter remitted to the Tribunal for proper examination of the appeal and for disposal on merits by the competent bench of the Tribunal. 13. On the other hand Sri. Chandrashekaraiah learned counsel for respondent – society would submit that the appeal of the petitioner virtually had no merit that the dispute raised by the petitioner before the Registrar himself was not one within the scope of section 70 of the Act, an appeal under section 105 is contemplated only in a situation where a party has suffered an adverse order on a valid dispute referred to the Registrar under sub-section 1 of section 70 of the Act and decided under section 71 of the Act. When there was no referable dispute within the scope of section 70 of the Act as legality of a bye law which has been put in place after going through the motions of being passed by General Body and approved by the Registrar, is not a subject matter for reference under section 70 and therefore no valid reference was made and no decision was contemplated, that the order being no order in the eye of law, the appeal is also equally not tenable under section 106 of the Act and the Tribunal is fully justified in dismissing the appeal. 14. With regard to the argument that appeal under section 105 before the Appeals Tribunal can be dismissed only by a Division Bench of Tribunal submission of Sri. Chandrashekaraiah, learned counsel for society is that the single member of the Tribunal having been enabled to pass orders at the time of admission for the purpose of admitting and granting interim order if admitted and at that stage if the learned member of the Tribunal should come across an appeal which is otherwise not tenable and it is not one coming within the scope of section 105 of the Act, such a presentation being no proper appeal under section 105, even a single member could reject such an appeal which is otherwise not tenable under section 105 of the Act. Therefore it is submitted that a single member could have definitely passed an order as in the present case. Mr. Therefore it is submitted that a single member could have definitely passed an order as in the present case. Mr. Chandrashekaraiah submitted that the order of the tribunal dismissing the appeal can also be sustained with reference to the provisions of the general clauses of the Act as an authority which has power to admit and entertain an appeal by implication also has the power to reject the appeal and therefore no interference is warranted. 15. The provisions of the general clauses Act can definitely be called in aid in a situation where statutory provisions are silent and there is a gap required to be filled up. 16. In the present situation the manner in which the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has to dispose of the appeals presented before it is regulated under the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Act 1976. Section 6 of the Act referred to above provides the manner in which the Appellate Tribunal has to exercise the appellate power as well as the revisional power in respect of proceedings before it. 17. Sub-section 2 of Section 6 while specifically includes a single member of the Tribunal to pass orders as referred to in clauses 1,2,3,4 and 5 in sub-section 2 of section 6, sub-section 3 of section 6. On the other hand enjoins the appeal or a revision relating the department of co-operation shall be heard by a bench comprised of a District Judge and a Co-operation member by implication. That means the subject matter of appeal or revision should be heard and decided only by a Division Bench as mentioned in section 3. In fact, sub-section 5 which contemplates that there being a division of opinion between the members of the bench being resolved, by the opinion the of the majority and by making the opinion a majority opinion by seeking the opinion of a larger bench by constituting the larger bench as provided under section 7 of the Act by the Chairman, is another point to conclude that matter should be heard for disposal only by a multi member bench and not by a single member bench of the Tribunal. .18. .18. In terms of the statutory provisions while a single member is no doubt enable to admit an appeal and also to condone the delay if any in preferring appeal or revision and also to grant an order of stay or interlocutory orders subject to such conditions as the single member of the Tribunal may deem fit, in respect of all the other proceedings of the Tribunal the matter can be heard and disposed of only by a Division Bench and in the case of a matter relating to the department of co-operation by a bench comprising of District Judge and Co-operation member and therefore an order dismissing the appeal is whether on the ground that the appeal itself is tenable or otherwise, should necessarily be passed only by a division bench of the tribunal and cannot be passed by a single member bench of the tribunal. 19. At the stage of admission of an appeal under section 105 of the Act, a single member of the tribunal could well admit in appeal and also pass an order of stay, if the learned member so is of the view the appeal merits admission. On the other hand the learned member is of the view that the appeal lacks merit and is to be dismissed, it cannot be done by himself but can only direct the appeal being placed for orders before a proper bench of the tribunal. The Tribunal is also wrong in thinking that appeal itself was not tenable before the Tribunal. 20. Be that as it may be order passed by the single bench of the Tribunal to dismiss an appeal is not valid order and it is definitely beyond the jurisdiction of a single member of the Tribunal to pass such an order. It is for this reason this Writ Petition is allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for a proper disposal of the appeal in accordance with law and on its merits by a competent bench as discussed above and as indicated in section 6 of Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Act 1976. Writ Petition is allowed. Rule issued and made absolute. The order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for a proper disposal of the appeal in accordance with law and on its merits by a competent bench as discussed above and as indicated in section 6 of Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Act 1976. Writ Petition is allowed. Rule issued and made absolute. With the disposal of the writ petition, the interim order granted in this petition comes to an end, it is open to the petitioner to move the tribunal for any interim order during the pendency of the appeal before the tribunal. Petitioner can move the tribunal for such purpose within six weeks from today and till then the respondent society not to resort to any further adverse action against the petitioner.