Judgment : 1. Second respondent is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of Karnataka Co- operative Societies Act, 1959. It's Managing Committee having been superseded and the administrator having taken charge, kept Ramachadraiah s/o Chikkanna, the Secretary of the Society under suspension and placed on 07.12.2012, one Mukundaraj, in charge of the post of Secretary. A dispute having been filed by Ramachandraiah and an interim order having been passed, when questioned in Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by the Society, the order passed in the dispute was set aside on 28.08.2013. 2. The petitioners were elected as members of Managing Committee of 2nd respondent-Society on 01.09.2013. A circular having been issued to all the Co- operative Societies to conduct their Annual General Body Meetings on or before 24.09.2013, the office bearers to the 2nd respondent having been elected on 04.09.2013 and the administrator having been handed over charge to the Managing Committee on 10.09.2013, in the meeting held on 18.09.2013, the Managing Committee of the 2nd respondent resolved to cancel the suspension of Ramachandraiah and to call for emergent meeting to discuss about conducting of the Annual General Body Meeting. On 21.09.2013, the Managing Committee of the 2nd respondent resolved to seek permission of respondents 1 and 3 to conduct Annual General Body Meeting after 25.09.2013 as there would not be 15 clear days time before 25.09.2013. The 1st respondent having issued notice to show-cause as to why the Managing Committee comprising of the petitioners should not be disqualified for not conducting Annual General Body Meeting and the petitioners having replied to the show- cause notice dated 10.10.2013, the 1st respondent passed an order in exercise of powers under Section 27(2)(a) of the Act, disqualifying the petitioners for a period of five years. Respondent No.4 was appointed as the Administrator of the 2nd respondent-Society on 14.11.2013. 3. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order of disqualification passed by the 1st respondent, have filed an appeal before the 3rd respondent. An interim order having been sought and the same having been refused on 20.12.2013 vide Annexure-N, these writ petitions have been filed for relief. 4. Heard Sri Jai Prakash Reddy, learned advocate for the petitioners and Sri.D.K.Sriramappa, learned advocate for 2nd respondent and learned AGA for respondents 1 and 3 and perused the writ petition papers. 5. An interim order having been sought and the same having been refused on 20.12.2013 vide Annexure-N, these writ petitions have been filed for relief. 4. Heard Sri Jai Prakash Reddy, learned advocate for the petitioners and Sri.D.K.Sriramappa, learned advocate for 2nd respondent and learned AGA for respondents 1 and 3 and perused the writ petition papers. 5. After the petitioners were disqualified on 13.11.2013, respondent No.4 was appointed as the Administrator of 2nd respondent-Society vide Annexure-K i.e., on 14.11.2013. The Administrator has passed a resolution dated 23.11.2013 and relieved Sri.Ramachandraiah from the post of Secretary of the 2nd respondent-Society and placed Sri.Mukundaraj in charge of the duties of the Secretary of the 2nd respondent- Society. 6. Since 4th respondent is acting as the Administrator of the 2nd respondent-Society, I do not find justification for the present, to interfere with the order as at Annexure-N passed by the 3rd respondent. The main relief and the interim relief sought being one and the same, 3rd respondent is justified in not granting interim order of stay of disqualification. 7. Since the petitioners were elected on 01.09.2013 and were disqualified on 13.11.2013, in my view, the 3rd respondent should decide the appeal pending before him expeditiously. 8. Learned counsel on both sides submitted that the appeal pending before the 3rd respondent is now scheduled to be taken up on 28.12.2013. In the circumstances, the 3rd respondent is directed to take up the appeal for consideration on 28.12.2013 and decide the same expeditiously and with a period of two weeks there from. Needless to observe that refusal of interim order would not come in the way of the 3rd respondent deciding the appeal on its merits and in accordance with law. In case, the appeal filed by the petitioners is allowed, necessarily the 4th respondent shall have to hand over the management of the 2nd respondent-Society to the petitioners. Writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.