ORDER 1. Revision under section 77 (14) has been field against the order of Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies, Gwalior transferring the case U/S 66 to Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies Gwalior dated 04-4-07 as well as the order of Dy. Registrar Gwalior dated 1-5-08 setting aside the objection of the appellant about jurisdiction. 2. The learned counsel Shri S.C. Dwivedi appearing for the applicant bank submitted that the applicant bank is a State level organization registered by Registrar, Cooperative Societies Bhopal, (M.P.). The applicant being the party in the dispute had submitted before the Joint Registrar the same could not be entertained by the Joint Registrar Gwalior as he is not the registering authority of the applicant bank. According to the counsel the laid down principles, which have been followed till date, were violated as this dispute u/s 64 is not presented before the registering authority. The counsel therefore urged that the objection not sustained by the Dy. Registrar in his order dated 1-5-08 as well as the order of the Joint Registrar dated 4.4.07 be set aside. 3. The learned counsel Sanjay Bajpai appearing for the Non-Applicant submitted that the applicant cannot approach Tribunal assailing the order of the Joint Registrar as well as the Dy. Registrar simulataneously. He placed his reliance on 2004 RN 301 Danish Grih Nirman Sahakari Samstha Maryadit and another v. Prabandhkarini Samiti and others. The counsel further submitted that the order of the Dy. Registrar can also not be challenged before the Tribunal as an alternate remedy is available for the applicant to approach Joint Registrar. The counsel placed his other reliance on 1995 RN 54 Bhanupratap Bansal Vs. M.P. Rajya Sahkari Bank Mydt. Bhopal where the division bench of Board of Reveunue has revised the principles laid down in Bhojraj Vs. Assistant Registrar (1982 RN 201) for the presentation of the case as it was earlier restricted to the Court competent to register the particular society. 4. Learned counsel Shri. San jay Bajpai further pointed out that the above view of the division bench of Board of Revenue was confirmed by Hon 'ble High Court in writ petition No.899 of 1995 in a single bench and later on by DB in LPA 291 of 1996 on 11-9-1996 in which Hon'ble High Court observed as following: "Under the notification the State Govt. has conferred the powers vested in the Registrar to the Dy. has conferred the powers vested in the Registrar to the Dy. Registrar of the Co-op. societies within the area of the district specified in column-5 and with regard to the dispute arising u/s 55 (2) of the Co-Op. Societies Act. Therefore the single bench rightly held that the writ petition preferred by the appellant against the Board of Revenue had no merit." 5. Substantiating his arguments further the learned counsel also placed on record the administrative circulars of Reg. Co-op. Societies, Bhopal dated 13-10-99 and 27-1-2000 in which the Registrar has instructed Joint Registrar Co-op. Societies to accept disputes and service disputes pertaining to bank and then transfer them to Dy. Registrar or Asst. Registrar under Section 66 or 80 as the case may be. Shri Vajpai further referred to RN 2004, 177 Dist. Co-op. Bhumi Vikas Bank & others Vs. Prakash Marudkar in which Hon'ble High Court laid down the principle that "that notification will have application on all proceedings which were pending on the said date that being so it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to examine whether the Dy. Registrar has power or jurisdiction to decide the dispute in view of the aforesaid notification. 6. Learned counsel Shri S.C. Dwivedi on his turn placed his reliance on 2008 RN 175 Ramanuj Tiwari Vs. M.P. State Coop. Tribunal and others where Hon'ble High Court has in no uncertain terms held that "the State Govt. by a special or general order cannot override" express specific provisions made by the State Legislature. He further drew our attention towards 2008 RN 395, Laxmi villas Printing Press Vs. Maharashtra Brahman Coop Bank where the Tribunal has held as following: "The above analysis should now leave no ground for any confusion and our present considered view should now remain open that a dispute u/s 64 presented to Joint Registrar can well be transferred to a Dy. Registrar u/. Maharashtra Brahman Coop Bank where the Tribunal has held as following: "The above analysis should now leave no ground for any confusion and our present considered view should now remain open that a dispute u/s 64 presented to Joint Registrar can well be transferred to a Dy. Registrar u/. 66 (1) whose decision in the matter will be a qualified one in respect of jurisdictional competence." As regards the competence of the JR in respect of a financing bank the counsel drew our attention towards following definition provided in Section-2 of the Act : "(1) Financing Bank" means a society, the objects of which is the creation of funds to be lent to other societies or its individual members, and includes State Co-operative Bank, Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, Central Co-operative Bank, Primary Urban Co-operative and Development Bank." 7. The petinent point for consideration here is this that can a Joint Registrar with a territorial jurisdiction for a specified area entertain a matter pertaining to an institution whose area of operation extends to the entire State of Madhya Pradesh. No doubt the M.P. State Coop. Bank is a financing Bank but its area of operation is whole of Madhya Pradesh. Along with Registrar the Additional Registrar and the Joint Registrar working in the Head Quarter have been delegated with the territorial jurisdicion in respect of the powers to exercise in matters of State level Societies. The counsel for the appellant in that way right in arguing that if going simply by the definition of the financing bank the Joint Registrar's working in the field start exercising powers in respect of the M.P. State Coop. Bank it will create a chaotic situation. 8. The circulars of the Registrar issued in this respect are indicative of the administrative arrangement in respect of territorial application of the power conferred to the Joint Registrars. The circulars can no way be interpreted to have authorized their Joint Registrar working in the field to start encroaching the jurisdiction of the Registrar himself and decide matters pertaining to the State level bodies. The argument of the counsel of the respondent was also that since the branch of the M.P. State Coop. Bank fell into the territory of the JRCS Gwalior, the JR. Gwalior could well entertain the case of an employee of this branch. The argument of the counsel of the respondent was also that since the branch of the M.P. State Coop. Bank fell into the territory of the JRCS Gwalior, the JR. Gwalior could well entertain the case of an employee of this branch. Surely, a branch of an organization be taken to be a body corporate independently as its existence to the basal organization which operates through various branches like one in the present case. The branch cannot independently take a decision for defending its parent body and the parent body cannot be subjected to be called in question by so many territorial authorities. This will certainly disrupt the entire administrative arrangement and the legal network operating through the specific legislative arrangement introduced and ensured by The M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. 9. We have gone through the decision of the Board of Revenue in Bhanpur Bansal case (supra) above where the Board of Revenue has undertaken the exercise in the light of delegation of powers made to various officers of the department. The pertinent point is however in respect of the provision of the Act. Section 64 as well as section 66 speak in tennis of the Registrar before whom the reference of the dispute u/s. 64 or u/s. 55 (2) is to be made. There is an exclusive section allocated for the definition of the Registrar. The same as section 3 of the Act is reproduced here as under: Section-3- Registrar and other officers-(1) The State Government shall appoint a person to be the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for the State and may appoint one or more officers of the following categories to assist him, namely: i. Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies; ii. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies; iii. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies; iv Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies; v. such other categories of officers as may be prescribed. 1. The officers appointed to assist the Registrar shall, within such areas as the State Government may specify, exercise such powers and perform such duties conferred and imposed on the Registrar by or under this Act as the State Government' may, by special or general order, direct: Provided that no officer other than the Additional Registrar or the Joint Registrar shall be directed to exercise the power to hear appeal under section78. (3) The officers appointed to assist the Registrar shall be subordinate to him and shall work under his general guidance, supervision and control. 10. As provided under sub section 2 of section 3 the officers appointed for assisting the Registrar exercise the powers and duties to the extent which is notified by the State Government by a special or general order. Notification of these powers have undergone many changes after the decision of the Board of Revenue in Bhanupratap Bansal case. The latest delegation of the powers made to the officers of Cooperative Department to act as Registrar is published in extra ordinary Gazette dated 26-7-2000 on page 1095 for empowering the Joint Registrar to exercise powers of the Registrar throughout the State posted in the headquarter. 11. The Joint Registrar working in the field have been delegated powers vide notification dated 13-2-2000. published in M.P. Gazette extraordinary dated 13-9-2000 on page 749. According to this notification the Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies Gwalior for instance can exercise powers of the Act in respect of all societies operating within the division. Similarly according to the earlier notification in this respect dated 26-7-99 published on page 1096 in M.P. Gazette there are two schedules enclosed. According to schedule one, the powers of the Dy. Registrar have been defined and according to schedule No. two the powers of the Assistant Registrar have been prescribed. This delegation empowers the specific officers to exercise powers in respect of cooperative societies either about the societies registered or about whom they are empowerd to act u/s 66by the Registrar. This scheme of delegation of powers makes it clear that suit u/s 64 or 55 (2) is to be presented before the competent authority i.e. Registrar as defined in Section 3. He should certainly by enjoying the powers of registering the society. In other consideration in which he hears the matter pertinent to dispute should be in u/s 66 when he has been nominated by the Registrar or transferred a case under order u/s 80. 12. Therefore it is to be concluded that as the applicant bank is a State level organization and its registering authority is Registrar Cooperative Societies M.P., there cannot be an officer below the rank of Joint Registrar working in the headquarter competent to registery the case and act on it. 12. Therefore it is to be concluded that as the applicant bank is a State level organization and its registering authority is Registrar Cooperative Societies M.P., there cannot be an officer below the rank of Joint Registrar working in the headquarter competent to registery the case and act on it. The Joint Registrar Gwalior therefore admitting the case pertaining to the applicant bank is not proper. 13. As regards the order of the Deputy Registrar assailed it is only consequential. Therefore the revision as presented can very well be considered. The Non Applicant placing his reliance on the decision of the Tribunal that passed by the erstwhile single bench can surely be modified by the Division Bench now functioning. . 14. The counsel for the respondent has also produced an order of Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court passed in L.P.A. No.291/96 (MP Rajya Sahakari Bank Mydt. Vs. Bhanu Pratap Bansal and others) decided on 11-09-1996, wherein Hon'ble High Court has confirmed the order passed by the Single Bench upholding the order of the Board of Revenue passed in Bhanpur Bansal case (Supra). It is however to be noted that as discussed earlier the order of the Board of Revenue which was upheld by Hon 'ble High Court as above is based on the delegations of power to the officers of the Co-operative Deptt. made before 1999. As pointed out above, the deligation made after 1999 is specific, therefore, the arrangement and the principle followed at present is this that the case u/s 64 or 55 (2) can be registered initially by the officer who is competent to register the society. It may however be transferred to a nominee u/s 66 or u/s 80, whenever there is a case or application for it. 15. In conclusion without going any further into technical analysis or the merit of the case we leave it to the Respondent to file the dispute before the Registrar who will be free to appoint a nominee when approached. The respondent is also free to exclude the time u/s 14 of Limitation Act for the calculation of limitation of time as provided in section 64. With the direction the revision stands disposed of. Result be noted, Cc. as per rules. Record of lower Court be return along with a copy of this order.