JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Mathur, J.—We have heard Shri H.R. Misra, learned senior advocate assisted by Shri K.M. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Rama Nand Pandey, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 and have also perused the record. 2. Through this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 1.4.2011 passed by respondent No. 3, Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U.P., Kanpur Region whereby he has set aside the order of District Assistant Registrar dated 11.2.2011 ordering inquiry under Section 65, U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 instead of proceeding against petitioner under Section 68 of U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 and consequential order dated 10.8.2011 passed by respondent No. 4 namely, District Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.P., Kanpur Nagar in compliance. The petitioner has also prayed for mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioner’s society and to desist from taking coercive action against the office-bearers pursuant to the impugned orders. 3. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that Bhartiya State Bank Karmachari Vetan Bhogi Sahkari Rin Samiti Ltd., Kanpur Nagar, in short, petitioner’s society, is a Primary Banking Cooperative Society, the membership of which is confined to paid employees of State Bank of India. The object of the Society is to ensure self help amongst its members and it provides loan at reasonable rate for domestic, social and other connected purposes. Its area of operation is in 45 districts of the State. The Society is self-sufficient and no financial help or grant is taken from the State Government or from any local authority or instrumentality of the State. Since the beginning one Shri L.N. Tiwari, who is a Founder Member of the Society, has been the Honorary Secretary of the petitioner’s society. It has also been stated that the petitioner’s society has framed its own Service Regulations to govern the service conditions of its employees which have been duly approved by District Assistant Registrar and provisions of U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees’ Service Regulations, 1975 are not applicable to the employees of the petitioner’s society. 4. It has been contended that Authorities of the Co-operative Department, especially the Joint Registrar, Kanpur Region, Kanpur and the District Assistant Registrar, Kanpur, respondent Nos. 4. It has been contended that Authorities of the Co-operative Department, especially the Joint Registrar, Kanpur Region, Kanpur and the District Assistant Registrar, Kanpur, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively, for vested interests have taken various actions including holding inquiries on the complaints of non-members or even strangers to the Society causing harassment and hindrance. The Society is running smoothly and its net profits have been increasing regularly. This progress has been attributed by the petitioner’s Society to the sincere and devoted efforts of the Managing Committee and in particular to Shri L.N. Tripathi, Secretary and Founder Member. 5. It has been stated that in the year 2004 a complaint was made by one Shri B. Lal, alleged President of an unregistered Association at the behest of Shri Ashok Kureel, owner of a newspaper. An inquiry was ordered by Joint Registrar under Section 66 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) through a Committee. On submission of the report of the Committee, the then District Assistant Registrar demanded an explanation proposing action under Section 68 of the Act. The explanation was submitted in December 2004 and no action was taken for almost two years. Thereafter, on the same set of allegations the then District Assistant Registrar Shri Alok Singh instituted an inquiry on 14.7.2006 under Section 65 of the Act which after submission of the explanation was dropped. 6. Again on the complaint of a stranger Shri Vinod Kumar Trivedi, advocate dated 22.8.2008, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies under the directions of the Minister directed the inquiry to be conducted by the then Additional Registrar/Managing Director. The inquiry officer held three of the allegations to be partly proved though they were based on surmises and conjectures. However, Joint Registrar (Banking) vide his order dated 10.12.2008 directed to take necessary action in the matter. It was alleged that the Secretary had claimed T.A. Bills against the provisions of the Act and had made appointment of his son. The allegations relating to the Secretary were found baseless in the judgment of the Co-operative Tribunal. However, Joint Registrar (Banking) vide his order dated 10.12.2008 directed to take necessary action in the matter. It was alleged that the Secretary had claimed T.A. Bills against the provisions of the Act and had made appointment of his son. The allegations relating to the Secretary were found baseless in the judgment of the Co-operative Tribunal. Despite there being no serious discrepancies in the yearly audit of the Society categorising it in Category-A Society on the basis of a complaint by a private individual an inquiry under Section 65 of the Act by a committee was conducted behind the back of the petitioner without due verification of the allegations from the records. This inquiry was conducted under the influence and pressure of the Joint Registrar. Report was submitted on 22.9.2008 recommending action under Section 68(1) of the Act for realising the financial loss alleged to have been misappropriated in the name of excess expenditures. Based on the aforesaid inquiry report the A.D.C.O. was nominated Inquiry Officer under Section 68(1) of the Act by the Joint Director who submitted his report on 8.10.2009 which is also stated to be an ex parte report and has been submitted in a prejudicial manner without verification of the allegations from the relevant records. The inquiry report is stated to be biased because of the reason that it has been mentioned in it that report is being given as per dictates and oral directions and in case any fact is revealed during the course of the hearing, further action may be taken in that light. Copy of the inquiry report has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. 7. After the inquiry report was filed, the matter was placed for initiating action under Section 68(2) of the Act in which several dates were fixed. It was demonstrated by the office-bearers of the petitioner’s society that the allegations were not verified from the records and the report was procured under pressure. Therefore, the Assistant Registrar vide his order dated 11.2.2011 constituted a committee to conduct an inquiry under Section 65 of the Act. Copy of the order is Annexure-5 to the writ petition. 8. It was demonstrated by the office-bearers of the petitioner’s society that the allegations were not verified from the records and the report was procured under pressure. Therefore, the Assistant Registrar vide his order dated 11.2.2011 constituted a committee to conduct an inquiry under Section 65 of the Act. Copy of the order is Annexure-5 to the writ petition. 8. It has been contended that the Joint Registrar acting completely without jurisdiction passed an order dated 1.4.2011 which is impugned hereinunder, whereby he proceeded to set aside the order of the Assistant Registrar dated 11.2.2011 and directed the Assistant Registrar to hold inquiry under Section 68(2) of the Act. In compliance of the order of the Joint Registrar the Assistant Registrar has passed a consequential order dated 10.8.2011 which is also impugned hereinunder and the Assistant Registrar is proceeding in the matter as per directions of the Joint Registrar, while under his own orders full-fledged inquiry by a committee under Section 65 of the Act has already been directed earlier in the matter. 9. In this background the order passed by Joint Registrar dated 1.4.2011, Annexure-1 to the writ petition and consequential order of the Assistant Registrar dated 10.8.2011, Annexure-2 to the writ petition have been challenged. 10. No counter-affidavit has been filed by any of the respondents despite service. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Joint Registrar, respondent No. 3 directing the Assistant Registrar to hold the inquiry under Section 68(2) of the Act is without jurisdiction. He has further submitted that vide notification No. 3328-C/XII-C-A-25(1)-67 dated 24.6.1969 issued under Section 3 of the Act and published in U.P. Gazettee part-1 dated 5.7.1969, the Governor has conferred powers of Registrar to the District Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies subject to the provisions of the Act and rules under clause 4(c) of the notification. The Joint Registrar had no authority to suo motu consider and set aside the quasi-judicial order passed by the District Assistant Registrar, respondent No. 4 exercising the powers of Registrar. The respondent No. 3 is neither a revisional nor an appellate authority against orders passed by an authority exercising powers of Registrar. The Joint Registrar had no authority to suo motu consider and set aside the quasi-judicial order passed by the District Assistant Registrar, respondent No. 4 exercising the powers of Registrar. The respondent No. 3 is neither a revisional nor an appellate authority against orders passed by an authority exercising powers of Registrar. Learned counsel has further contended that once the Assistant Registrar exercising power of the Registrar for a primary society by his order dated 11.2.2011 directed full-fledged inquiry under Section 65 of the Act to be conducted by a committee it was not open for the Joint Registrar to upset the order. 12. It has also been submitted that the petitioner had made a representation to respondent No. 4 on 31.1.2011 (Annexure-7) in which he has categorically stated that the petitioner’s society was being unnecessarily subjected to harassment by initiating frivolous proceedings under the Act one after the other while no discrepancy could be detected including any financial irregularity of any serious nature. Therefore, a request was made to respondent No. 4 to make a thorough inquiry on the basis of the records and after giving due consideration to the case of the society. Respondent No. 4 passed an order dated 11.2.2011 for instituting another fact finding inquiry by a duly constituted committee to examine the veracity of the allegations on the basis of the records. Learned counsel has also submitted that there does not appear to be any justification for levelling surcharge under Section 68(2) of the Act in the light of the impugned order passed by respondent No. 3. A representation has also been made to the concerned Principal Secretary of the State Government on 11.4.2011 pointing out the harassment being caused to the elected body. 13. Further submission is that Secretary of the Petitioner’s Society is being unnecessarily harassed by the Joint Secretary since 2004. Actions were directed at the instance of Joint Registrar against Shri L.N. Tiwari, Secretary on various frivolous grounds which included allegation that he is indulging in financial irregularities specially in drawing his salary after attaining the superannuation. Three orders were passed illegally. Firstly, by the Joint Registrar on 1.11.2008 terminating the services of so called illegally appointed employees and also directing to initiate proceedings under Section 68 of the Act. Three orders were passed illegally. Firstly, by the Joint Registrar on 1.11.2008 terminating the services of so called illegally appointed employees and also directing to initiate proceedings under Section 68 of the Act. Secondly, the Joint Registrar appointed A.D.C.O. Shri Girish Chandra Sharma to hold inquiry under Section 68(1) of the Act vide his order dated 31.10.2008 and thirdly, through an order dated 25.11.2008, exercising power under Section 128 of the Act resolution of the Society was annulled. All the three orders have been collectively filed as Annexure-9 to the petition. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that petitioner preferred a writ petition No. 19975 of 2008 challenging the illegal termination of services of its employees and also orders of Joint Registrar dated 31.10.2008 and 25.11.2008. The Hon’ble Court vide interim orders dated 20.11.2008 and 5.5.2009 granted interim relief to the petitioner and stayed the effect and operation of orders dated 1.11.2008, 31.10.2008 and 25.11.2008, copies of which have been filed collectively as Annexure-10. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the said orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court were duly brought to the notice of the authorities concerned but still the Joint Registrar preferred to pass impugned order to proceed against the petitioner under Section 68 of the Act without obtaining permission from the Hon’ble High Court though through interim order dated 5.5.2009 initiation of action under Section 68 of the Act was stayed. Therefore, order impugned passed by the Joint Registrar is illegal and void. 16. Lastly, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that Rule 357 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules 1968 provides that no action can be taken on any application for inquiry into the affairs or matters relating to Cooperative Society moved by a person who is neither a member of the Cooperative Society nor a creditor thereof unless such application is accompanied by a fee of Rs. 500/-. Similarly, under sub-section 2 of Section 65 of the Act it has been provided that an inquiry shall be held by Registrar or by a person authorised by him in this behalf on the application of either a cooperative society to which the society concerned is affiliated or by not less than 1/3rd of the total members of the society or by a majority of the members of the Committee of Management of the Society. Since the alleged complaint has not been made by any member of the Cooperative Society, creditor, 1/3rd of the total members of the society or by a majority of the members of the committee of management of the society and further no deposit, as has been contemplated under the Rules, has been made, therefore, no complaint could have been entertained by any of the authorities. 17. In view of the submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that writ petition deserves to be allowed and impugned orders are liable to be quashed. 18. Learned Standing Counsel has defended the impugned orders and has contended that Joint Registrar is a superior officer in rank and has inherent powers to correct any irregularity or mistake in the orders of the authorities junior to him in hierarchy. The Assistant Registrar had no authority to review the order passed against the petitioner’s society for initiation of proceedings under Section 68(1) of the Act passed earlier and instead order for de novo inquiry under Section 65 of the Act. The order of the Assistant Registrar was without jurisdiction, arbitrary and was apparently influenced and the entire exercise undertaken earlier was set to naught without any genuine rhyme and reason. When the Registrar was of the opinion that the society was not working on sound line and its management was defective, the Joint Registrar exercising jurisdiction of Registrar has the power to effect corrective measures not inconsistent with the Act. Since financial irregularities were apparent, therefore, order restoring to proceed for imposition of surcharge, as was subsisting earlier, cannot be termed to be an order without jurisdiction and as such no illegality has been committed while passing the impugned order and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 19. Before we proceed to consider the respective submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it is useful to refer to relevant statutory provisions relevant for the disposal of this petition. Registrar has been defined in Section 3 as follows : Section 3—Registrar.—(1) The State Government may appoint a person to be the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for the State. (2) The State Government may, for the purposes of this Act, also appoint other persons to assist the Registrar and by general or special order confer on any such person all or any of the powers of the Registrar. (2) The State Government may, for the purposes of this Act, also appoint other persons to assist the Registrar and by general or special order confer on any such person all or any of the powers of the Registrar. (3) Where any order has been made under sub-section (2) conferring on any person all or any of the powers of the Registrar under any provision of this Act, such order shall be deemed to confer on him all the powers under that provision as may be amended from time to time. The State Government under sub-section (2) of Section 3 has issued a notification dated 24.6.1969 which has been published in U.P. Gazette part-1 dated 5.7.1969. By means of this notification the Governor has conferred powers of Registrar subject to the provisions of the Act and Rules in Clause 4 (c) to the District Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies. The relevant extract of Clause 4(c) is being reproduced for clarifying the legal position. “(4)................................................................ (a)................................................................. (b)................................................................. (c) under Sections 27, 29, 31, 65, 68, 74, 91, 92 and 127 of the Act and Rules 42, 43, 60, 61, 62, 90, 97, 110, 111, 124, 125, 151, 178, 180, 213, 214, 215 and 224 in respect only of the primary Co-operative Societies, having headquarters within the area of his jurisdiction”. 20. Section 65 of the Act may also be reproduced to understand the ambit of the provision. Section 65. Inquiry by Registrar.—(1) The Registrar may, of his own accord, himself, or by a person authorised by him by order in writing, hold an inquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of a co-operative society. (2) An inquiry of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) shall be held by the Registrar or by a person authorised by him in writing in this behalf on the application of - (a) a co-operative society to which the society concerned is affiliated; (b) not less than one-third of the total members of the society; (c) a majority of the members of the committee of management of the society. (3) The Registrar, or the person authorised by him under sub-section (1) shall, for the purposes of any inquiry under this Section, have the following powers, namely- (a) he shall, at all times, have access to the books, accounts, documents, securities, cash and other properties belonging to or in the custody of the society and may summon any person in possession of, or responsible for the custody of any such books, accounts, documents, securities, cash or other properties, to produce the same at any place at the headquarters of the society or any branch thereof; (b) he may summon any person who, he has reason to believe has knowledge of any affairs of the society to appear before him at any place at the headquarters of the society or any branch thereof and may examine such person on oath; (c) ................................................... (d).................................................... (4).................................................... (5).................................................... 21. We make it clear that as regards the allegations that authorities of co-operative department had a bias against the petitioner’s society and in particular against Shri L.N. Tiwari, is a factual matter and it will be appropriate that this controversy be dealt with by the competent authority and not by writ Court. 22. As regards the other argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that no action for initiation of inquiry under Section 65 of the Act could have been taken on the complaints of non-members/strangers in view of Rule 357 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules 1968 and also in view of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 65 of the Act, we are of the view that since there is nothing on record about the exact status of the complainant and also whether the prescribed fee has been deposited by the complainant or not, therefore, we leave the dispute open to be decided by the appropriate authority during the course of the inquiry, however, we record that complaints can only be entertained of those persons who are eligible as per provisions of Section 65(2) of the Act and Rule 357. 23. Vide notification dated 24.6.1969, Annexure-6 to the writ petition the State Government has authorised District Assistant Registrar to exercise powers under Sections 65 and 68 of the Act on behalf of the Registrar. 23. Vide notification dated 24.6.1969, Annexure-6 to the writ petition the State Government has authorised District Assistant Registrar to exercise powers under Sections 65 and 68 of the Act on behalf of the Registrar. It is true that the Joint Registrar is a superior officer in hierarchy than the District Assistant Registrar, however, delegation of powers of the Registrar to the District Assistant Registrar empowers him to exercise the jurisdiction specifically vested through notification in him. In the instant case, three orders dated 1.11.2008 terminating services of allegedly illegally appointed employees of society by the District Assistant Registrar and further initiation of action under Section 68 of the Act and secondly, order dated 31.10.2008 appointing A.D.C.O. Shri Girish Chandra Sharma to hold inquiry under Section 68(1) of the Act passed by Joint Registrar and order annulling the proceedings under Section 128 of the Act dated 25.11.2008 and have been filed together as Annexure-9 to the writ petition, were challenged in the Hon’ble Court by the petitioner through writ petition No. 19975 of 2008 and their operation was duly stayed by this Court. 24. From the perusal of the record, it appears that vide order dated 18.6.2008 before the interim orders were passed by this Court, an inquiry under Section 65 of the Act was ordered against the petitioner’s society and report of the inquiry committee dated 29.9.2008 was received and on 2.2.2009 District Assistant Registrar ordered inquiry under Section 68(1) of the Act. Further it appears that on receipt of the inquiry report under Section 68(1) of the Act, opportunity was afforded to the petitioner’s society for hearing. After 2-3 dates were fixed in the proceedings, the order dated 11.2.2011 whereby respondent No. 4 on being prima facie convinced that the inquiries under Sections 65 and 68(1) of the Act were not conducted in accordance with law, ordered for holding a fresh inquiry under Section 65 of the Act. This order was set aside by the Joint Registrar, respondent No. 3, who instead ordered that proceedings under Section 68(2) of the Act be initiated against the petitioner’s society. 25. As regards the argument that respondent No. 3 in violation of the interim order of this Court and also without having jurisdiction to pass such order, has passed the impugned order dated 1.4.2011, we are of the view that several inquiries were initiated against the petitioner’s society under various provisions. 25. As regards the argument that respondent No. 3 in violation of the interim order of this Court and also without having jurisdiction to pass such order, has passed the impugned order dated 1.4.2011, we are of the view that several inquiries were initiated against the petitioner’s society under various provisions. In some of them, no action was taken, some were subsequently dropped and in some of them, further proceedings were continued. The proceedings, which were challenged before the High Court and in which the interim orders were passed, were initiated in respect of different inquiry report, however in those proceedings also inquiry under Section 68 of the Act was ordered which was stayed through interim order. In the instant case, the basis of the inquiry is on almost similar allegations on which orders to proceed under Section 68 of the Act were passed. There cannot be any legal bar for initiation of proceedings under Section 68 of the Act on the basis of an independent inquiry report by the authorities, however, if the inquiry is held more or less on the same allegations, then the proceedings cannot be termed as independent or fair. The concerned authority will also examine this fact and record its finding also. Prima facie the inquiry report dated 8.10.2009, Annexure-4 to the writ petition appears ex parte in nature and the order dated 11.2.2011 passed by respondent No. 4 in view of the objections of Petitioner’s Society pointing out certain discrepancies in the inquiries appear justified. The inquiry proceedings being quasi judicial, the respondent No. 4 had the inherent power to review his order to ensure fair justice. 26. The District Assistant Registrar, respondent No. 4 while exercising delegated powers of Registrar has the competence to pass any order under Sections 65 and 68 of the Act in accordance with law independently. The Joint Registrar is not the revisional or appellate authority of District Assistant Registrar. The inquiry proceedings are quasi judicial proceedings and are not to be misunderstood as pure administrative proceedings. The Joint Registrar is not the revisional or appellate authority of District Assistant Registrar. The inquiry proceedings are quasi judicial proceedings and are not to be misunderstood as pure administrative proceedings. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa and others v. Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement Cuttack and others, (1998) 7 SCC 162 , has held that order of delegatee is to be treated as order of Principal itself, hence Principal cannot revise the order of delegatee, therefore, in view of this law we are prima facie convinced that respondent No. 3 had no authority to revise by setting aside the order passed by respondent No. 4 dated 11.2.2011. The order of respondent No. 4 will be treated as order of Registrar. Our view is further fortified by a decision of this Court in Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Dacore through its Chairman Shri Raghuvanshi Lal Gupta and others v. District Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies Jalaun at Orai (Shri Dayashankar Singh) and others, 1973 ALJ 385 and we are of view that the argument of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondent No. 3 (Joint Registrar) had no authority to revise the order passed by respondent No. 4 on 11.2.2011 is without jurisdiction and as such not sustainable. 27. The administrative powers under Section 69 of the Act have been conferred upon the Registrar for remedying of defects. The powers of the Registrar had been delegated under a notification dated 24.6.1969 but these powers can be exercised only in cases where as a result of audit held under Section 64 of the Act or an inquiry under Section 65 of the Act or on an inspection under Section 66 of the Act the Registrar is of the opinion that the society is not working on sound lines or its management is defective, then he may without prejudice to any other action under this Act, order directing the society or its officers to take such action not inconsistent with this Act, the rules and bye-laws to remedy the defects within the time specified therein. The definition of Joint Registrar under Rule 2 (f) of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rule 1968 defines Joint Registrar as an officer appointed as a Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies under sub-section 2 of Section 3. The definition of Joint Registrar under Rule 2 (f) of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rule 1968 defines Joint Registrar as an officer appointed as a Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies under sub-section 2 of Section 3. Sub-section 2 of Section 3 provides that the State Government may, for the purposes of this Act, also appoint other persons to assist the Registrar and by general or special order confer on any such person all or any of the powers of the Registrar. Therefore, even if it is presumed that respondent No. 3 was exercising delegated powers of Registrar in passing the impugned order under Section 69 of the Act, then also he had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order because under Section 69 of the Act the order can be passed for remedying the defects directing the society or its officers to take such action not inconsistent with the Act, rules and bye-laws. In the instant case, no such directions have been issued by respondent No. 3 for remedying the defects either to society or to its officers. Further respondent No. 3 cannot issue such directions when respondent No. 4 exercising delegated powers of Registrar has already ordered for holding fresh inquiry under Section 65 of the Act. 28. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is partially allowed and impugned orders dated 1.4.2011 passed by respondent No. 3 and order dated 10.8.2011 of respondent No. 4 in compliance are quashed. As a consequence of the quashing of the impugned orders the order passed by respondent No. 4 dated 11.2.2011 will be revived and further proceedings against the petitioner shall be held under Section 65 of the Act. After receipt of the inquiry report, appropriate reasoned orders will be passed by the authority concerned. The authority concerned will also record its finding on the question of entertainability of complaint by the complainant in the light of provisions of Section 65(2) of the Act and Rule 357. 29. No order is passed as to costs. ——————