ORDER R.S. Garg, J. 1. The petitioner who was member of respondent No. 2 Shaskiya Mudran Karmachari Grah Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Bhopal, has filed this writ petition before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 18-5-2007. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner being member, had obtained certain allotments in his favour vide resolution dated 26-3-2000. The respondent- Society, in its general meeting resolved to enhance the development charges from Rs. 16 per square feet to Rs. 28 per square feet. The petitioner, despite appropriate information, did not deposit the enhanced amount, therefore, in the Board meeting dated 3-1-2008, he was expelled from the membership of the Society under Section 19-C of the Act. The order of expulsion was challenged by the petitioner before the Deputy Registrar, who vide his order dated 21-10-04 dismissed the said matter treating that to be an appeal under Section 19-C (1-A) of the Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 21-10-2004 filed an appeal before the Joint Registrar, who vide his order on 29-1-2006 set aside the order of the Deputy Registrar and also set aside the order of expulsion. The respondent Housing Society being aggrieved by the order passed by the Joint Registrar filed the second appeal before the M.P. State Co-operative Tribunal, Bhopal. The Tribunal vide its order dated 18-5-2007 allowed the appeal holding inter alia that the appeal before the Joint Registrar was not maintainable in view of juxtapose reading of Section 19-C (1-A) and Section 78 (2) of the Co-operative Societies Act. The Tribunal accordingly set aside the order dated 29-1-2006 passed by the Joint Registrar but, however, reserved liberty in favour of the petitioner to file second appeal before the Tribunal against the order dated 21-10-2004. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Tribunal has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner after taking us through the provisions contained under Section 19-C and Section 78 (1) and (2) of the Act submitted that the resolution passed by the Co-operative Society Act though is treated to be an order, but, in fact, it is not an order and, under Section 19-C (1-A), the matter placed before the Deputy Registrar is in form of a dispute. His submission is that if the Deputy Registrar was the First Authority to entertain the dispute then, the regular first appeal could lie to the Joint Registrar and second appeal could lie to the Tribunal. His submission that the learned Tribunal without appreciating the distinction between a resolution and an order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Joint Registrar, Additional Registrar/Registrar erred in holding that the order passed by the Deputy Registrar under Section 19-C (1-A) would be treated to be an appellate order. In the alternative, it is submitted that if the second appeal before the Joint Registrar was not maintainable then against the said order passed by the Joint Registrar a further second appeal to the Tribunal would also not lie. His submission is that the Tribunal could not have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 78 (2) of the Act. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondents Shri Rahul Rawat submitted that if the law provides that a resolution is to be treated as an order and an appeal is provided against such a resolution then the authority who is hearing a matter against the resolution would be deemed to be an Appellate Authority and, in the present matter, if the Deputy Registrar is treated to be an Appellate Authority rather than Original Authority then under the law second appeal would lie to the Tribunal. His submission is that in case where an authority which does not have jurisdiction initiates the proceedings and grants a relief which it is not entitled to grant then any aggrieved party would be entitled to challenge the said order before the higher forum and the said higher forum would be entitled to correct the wrong. 5. We have heard the parties at length and have gone through the provisions of law and the reasonings adopted by the learned Court below. 5. We have heard the parties at length and have gone through the provisions of law and the reasonings adopted by the learned Court below. Section 19-C reads as under: 19-C. Expulsion of members.- (1) The committee may, by a resolution passed by three-fourth majority of the members present and voting at a meeting held for the purposes, expel a member if he: (a) intentionally does any act likely to injure the credit of the society or bring it to disrepute; or (b) wilfully deceives the society by false statements; or _ (c) carries on any business which comes or is likely to come into conflict with the business carried on by the society; or (d) persistently makes default in payment of his dues or fails to comply with any provisions of the bye-laws: Provided that no such resolution shall be valid unless the member concerned has been given seven days' notice, either personally or by registered post, of the proposal to expel him and has been given an opportunity to represent his case to the Committee. (1-A) Any person aggrieved by the resolution shall be valid unless the member concerned has been given seven days' notice, either personally or by registered post, of the proposal to expel him and has been given an opportunity to represent his case to the committee. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or rules or bye-laws made thereunder, where it appears to the Registrar that it is necessary and desirable in the interest of the society to expel a member from the society for his indulging in any of the activities specified in Sub-section (1), he may call upon such member and the society, to explain within a period to be specified by him, why such member should not be expelled from the society. If the member or society fails to furnish his or its explanation, within the specified period or after considering the explanation, if received, the Registrar may pass an order expelling a member from the society. (3) No person who has been expelled shall be eligible for re-admission as a member of the co-operative for a period of one year from the date of such expulsion. (4) Expulsion of a member from a society may involve forfeiture of shares held by the member in such society. 6. (3) No person who has been expelled shall be eligible for re-admission as a member of the co-operative for a period of one year from the date of such expulsion. (4) Expulsion of a member from a society may involve forfeiture of shares held by the member in such society. 6. A perusal of Sub-section (1) of Section 19-C of the Co-operative Societies Act would clearly shows that a Committee may by resolution passed by three-fourth majority of the members present and voting at a meeting held for the purposes, expel a member. Sub-section (1-A) of Section 19-C provides that any person feeling aggrieved by the resolution of the Committee may appeal before the Registrar within 30 days of the communication of such resolution. 7. Under Section 19-C (1-A), the resolution passed by the Committee can be challenged in appeal. Once law says that for a particular purpose a resolution can be challenged in an appeal then the resolution itself would partake character of an order. Whatever we may term the resolution but undisputedly, the said resolution can be challenged in an appeal under Sub-section (1-A) of Section 19-C. When a statutory right is conferred upon a party then such statutory right is to be exercised in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act. At this stage, it would be necessary to note that the powers which can be exercised by the Registrar for the purpose of deciding the disputes or exercising the powers under Sub-rule (1) of Section 19-C, have been conferred upon and vested into the Deputy Registrar. A dispute under Section 64 or an appeal under Sub-section (1-A) of Section 19-C shall be maintainable before the Deputy Registrar. It is also to be seen that Section 3 (2) of the Co-operative Societies Act provides that no Officer other than the Additional Registrar or the Joint Registrar shall be directed to exercise the powers to hear appeals under Section 78. If the Additional Registrar or the Joint Registrar in accordance with Section 3 are to hear the appeals then such power is conferred upon them under Section 78 only. 8. At this stage, we have to carve a distinction between the appellate powers conferred upon an authority under Section 78 and/or under Section 19-C (1-A) of the Act. If the Additional Registrar or the Joint Registrar in accordance with Section 3 are to hear the appeals then such power is conferred upon them under Section 78 only. 8. At this stage, we have to carve a distinction between the appellate powers conferred upon an authority under Section 78 and/or under Section 19-C (1-A) of the Act. If there are different powers conferred upon different authorities under the different provision of statute then, such powers are to be exercised by such authorities under the said provisions of law. If Section 19-C (1-A) provides that any person aggrieved by the resolution of the Committee under Sub-section (1) may file an appeal before the Registrar within 30 days of the communication of such resolution then obviously, there would be some difficulty for the Deputy Registrar to exercise the power under Section 78 read with Section 3 of the Act but in the present matter, Sub-section (1 -A) of Section 19-C in itself provides for statutory appellate power in favour of Deputy , Registrar and a right to prefer an appeal in favour of the person aggrieved then one cannot be allowed to say that the appeal before the Deputy Registrar would be treated as a dispute or representation. If the statute treats such proceedings to be an appeal then the Court would not allow anybody to say that such proceedings would not be treated to be an appeal. 9. Section 78 of the Act provides for the appeals. According to Section 78 save where it has been otherwise provided (Emphasis supplied) an appeal shall lie from every original order under this Act or the rules made thereunder to a particular authority. Sub-section (2) of Section 78 says that a second appeal shall lie against any order passed in the first appeal by the Registrar, to the Tribunal on any of the grounds as mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section 78. A bare perusal and reading of Section 78 (1) would make it clear that if a particular appellate order is passed by a particular authority under the provisions of the Act then, the first appeal would lie to a particular authority. However, Section 78 (1) clearly provides that "Save where it has been otherwise provided" such an appeal shall lie. A bare perusal and reading of Section 78 (1) would make it clear that if a particular appellate order is passed by a particular authority under the provisions of the Act then, the first appeal would lie to a particular authority. However, Section 78 (1) clearly provides that "Save where it has been otherwise provided" such an appeal shall lie. It would thus be clear that whatever is saved in the other provisions of the Act, is not adversely effected by Section 78 (1) of the Act. Section 19-C (1-A) is a provision which otherwise provides for an appeal. If there is a provision for an appeal under the Act itself then the authority which is passing the order in its appellate jurisdiction cannot be treated to be an Original Authority for purpose of Section 78 (1) of the Act even if such authority is ranking as Deputy Registrar only. Once Section 78 (1) is understood to be applicable to such orders which are passed under other provision of the Act, and are otherwise saved, then Section 78 (1) cannot include in its compass an order passed under Section 19-C and then an order passed under Section 19-C (1-A) by the said Deputy Registrar, would be taken to be an appellate order then it cannot be challenged in a second appeal or any regular appeal before the Joint Registrar, Additional Registrar or Registrar. Such an appellate order has to be challenged before the Tribunal under Section 78 (2) of the Act. 10. It was sought to be contended that second appeal shall lie against any order passed in the first appeal by the Registrar and as in the present matter the appellate order was passed by the Deputy Registrar, a second appeal cannot lie to the Tribunal. In our opinion, the argument is misconceived. Section 78 (2) looking to the wisdom of the legislation is to be read along with Section 78 (1) of the Act. When an order is passed by the First Appellate Authority under Section 78 (1) then, second appeal shall lie to the Tribunal against the order passed by the Registrar, Additional Registrar or Joint Registrar. Section 78 (2) looking to the wisdom of the legislation is to be read along with Section 78 (1) of the Act. When an order is passed by the First Appellate Authority under Section 78 (1) then, second appeal shall lie to the Tribunal against the order passed by the Registrar, Additional Registrar or Joint Registrar. But if an order is not passed by the First Appellate Authority provided under Section 78 (1) of the Act, but it is passed by any other Appellate Authority then for the purpose of harmonious construction we have to read the word 'Registrar' employed in Section 78 (2) to mean that order passed by 'any authority as First Appellate Authority' and if we read the word 'Registrar' as an authority then Section 78 (2) would become purposeful and would become applicable to such a situation. 11. In the present matter, the first appellate order was passed by the Deputy Registrar and, therefore, that could not be treated to be an original order for the purpose of Section 78 (1) of the Act. If such order was an appellate order even though, it was not passed by the Registrar then too, the second appeal would lie to the Tribunal under Section 78 (2) of the Act. 12. Taking into consideration the scheme of the Act and the different provisions of law, we hold that the order passed by the Tribunal is not bad. The Tribunal was justified in holding that the appeal before the Joint Registrar was not maintainable. We uphold the order and dismiss the petition on merits. 13. However, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and that such fine question is raised for the first time before the Tribunal and this Court, we grant liberty to the petitioner to approach to the Tribunal under Section 78 (2) of the Act to challenge the order dated 21-10-2004 passed by the Deputy Registrar. If within 30 days from today the appellant files a second appeal before the Tribunal then question of limitation would not be allowed to be raised by anybody and the Tribunal shall be obliged to decide the appeal on merits. There shall be no order as to costs.