JUDGMENT : S.K. Mishra, J. - The Petitioners in this case assail the Order Dated 11.03.2001 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Keonjhar Division, Keonjhar suspending the Committee of Management of the Deogaon Service Cooperative Societies u/s 32(7) of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1962, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', for brevity. 2. The Petitioners claim that they are the office bearers being the President and one of the Directors of the aforesaid Service Cooperative Society. They are followers of the opposition party, whereas the Member of the Legislative Assembly, representing the local constituency is an influential Minister. He influenced Opp. Party No. 2 to take recourse to such a drastic action like suspension. It is contended that the order of suspension does not speak of any reason for necessitating action u/s 32 of the Act and that such an action was taken without conducting any enquiry whatsoever and therefore, they prayed that the impugned order under Annexure-1 be quashed. 3. In course of hearing, the records of the office of the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Keonjhar Division, Keohjhar were submitted for examination of the Court and thereafter an additional affidavit was filed by the Petitioners. In such additional affidavit, they sought to introduce Annexures 4, 5, 6 and 7 on the pleading that it will show that the order passed by the Deogarh Service Cooperative Society was tainted with malice and has been influenced by the Minister. In course of hearing, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that the powers u/s 32(7) of the Act can only be exercised by the Registers and the Deputy Registrars of Cooperative Societies do not have the authority to take action under the said provision. It is also alleged that the Deputy Registrar has written to the Secretary of the Keonjhar Central Cooperative Bank limited to suspend the Petitioners because of the audit findings of the Deogaon Service Cooperative Society for the year 2008-09. 4. It is also alleged that the Deputy Registrar has written to the Secretary of the Keonjhar Central Cooperative Bank limited to suspend the Petitioners because of the audit findings of the Deogaon Service Cooperative Society for the year 2008-09. 4. Section 32(7) of the Act provides that if the Registrar of Cooperative Societies is in the opinion that the Committee of a Society is acting in the manner prejudicial to the interest of the Society or its members or has committed serious irregularities or illegalities that further continuance of the Committee would be detrimental to the interest of the Society, the Registrar may, at any time before or, as the case may be, after issue of a notice under Sub-section (1), suspend the Committee and make such arrangements as he thinks proper for the management of the affairs of the Society, during the period of suspension of the Committee. The State Government, as per the Notification dated 21.09.1999 delegated, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act, the powers of the Registrar to Additional Registrar, Joint Registrar and Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, which are to be exercised within such local limits as may be assigned by the Registrar. It is clear from serial No. 3 of the schedule that the powers that can be exercised by the Registrar u/s 32 of the Act among other Sections were delegated to the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies. This Sub-section (7) of Section 32 of the Act was reinserted in the Act by Orissa Act 7 of 1996 on 22.04.1996. Thereafter, the Notification in the shape of an order has been issued. Therefore, it is clear that the Deputy Registrar enjoys all the powers of the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies u/s 32 of the Act. Since this Notification is fresh one issued after amendment of 1996, the ratio decided in Tara Prasad Patnaik and Others Vs. State of Orissa and Others, is not applicable to the case in hand. 5. It is contended by the Petitioners that the local M.L.A. has influenced the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies. However, no material has been placed before the Court to substantiate such allegation. State of Orissa and Others, is not applicable to the case in hand. 5. It is contended by the Petitioners that the local M.L.A. has influenced the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies. However, no material has been placed before the Court to substantiate such allegation. It was imperative on the part of the Petitioners to clearly bring out a case by placing cogent materials to establish that in fact the local M.L.A. has influenced the D.R.C.S. to issue the order impugned. Having failed to do so, we are unable to accept such contention raised by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners. 6. The special note and audit findings of the Deogaon Service Cooperative Societies have also been filed. We have perused the same. The Auditor has found several irregularities regarding debt waiver scheme, negligence in maintenance of loan register, closure of loan accounts without collection of loan amount. There were also cuttings and over-writings in all the transactions especially with regard to date of finance and collection of amount, as a result of which it is impossible to ascertain the exact and actual outstanding position and O.D. position correctly. The Auditor has specifically mentioned that the outstanding loan position of the Society is not ascertained as at the end of the year and the irregularities of the Chief Executive is doubtful in this respect for non maintenance of the loan ledger in proper manner. The Board of Management found to be responsible for irregularity in the Books of Account. Basing on this report, the D.R.C.S. took the decision that the continuance of the Committee is against the detrimental interest of the Service Cooperative Society and its members. Thus, there are cogent and reasonable grounds for coming to the conclusion that the suspension order issued by the D.R.C.S. under Sub-section (7) of Section 32 of the Act is just and proper. Thus, on the face of such show cause reply, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the D.R.C.S. under Anenxure-1. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No cost. L. Mohapatra, J. 7. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed