ORDER Rohit Arya, J. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of the Union of India through General Manager, North Central Railway, V.T.Bombay is directed against the order dated 10/02/2009 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies, Morena (hereinafter referred to as the 'Authority') holding that the petitioner is liable for damages payable to the respondent No.1 assuming the jurisdiction under Section 64 of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Authority had committed serious jurisdictional error having invoked the provisions of Section 64 of the Act in the matter of adjudication of claim against the Railways filed by the respondent No.1. It is submitted that the Ministry of Railways or any department working thereunder are not cooperative societies and do not fall in any of the categories as specified in Section 64 of the Act for the purpose of amenability to the jurisdiction of the Registrar in proceeding for claim of damages against the Railway Administration. It is submitted that any claim against the Railways, the provisions as contained in the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Railways Act') shall be applicable before the forums prescribed thereunder. It is submitted that the Railway Claims Tribunal has been constituted under Section 13(1)(a)(i) of the Railways Act. Counsel refers to Section 24 of the Railways Act to bolster his submission that for the dispute, the cognizance whereof has been taken by the Authority on or before coming into force of the provision of sub-Section 1(a) of Section 13 of the Railway Act ought to have been transferred before the Railway Claims Tribunal by force of the provision as contained in Section 24 of the Railways Act which contemplates transfer of the pending cases. Section 24(1) is relevant and reproduced below: "24. Section 24(1) is relevant and reproduced below: "24. Transfer of pending cases.- (1) Every suit, claim or other legal proceeding (other than an appeal) pending before any Court, Claims Commissioner or other authority immediately before the appointed day, or as the case may be, the date of commencement of the provisions of sub-Section (1-A) of Section 13, being a suit, claim or proceeding the cause of action whereon it is based is such that it would have been, if it had arisen after the appointed day, or, as the case may be, the date of commencement of the provisions of sub Section (1-A) of Section 13, within the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal, shall stand transferred on that day or, as the case may be, date to the Claims Tribunal." The Authority has committed grave illegality having not transferred the said pending case before the Railway Claims Tribunal and wrongly assumed the jurisdiction to decide the same by the impugned order. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned order suffers from the principles of coram non-judice and cannot sustain in law. 3. Per contra, counsel for the respondent No.1 contends that even though the Authority had assumed the jurisdiction under Section 64 of the Act wrongly, the petitioner having not appeared before the Authority and raised such an objection, the said issue cannot be allowed to be addressed before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that if the petitioner's contention that the impugned order suffers from the jurisdictional error is sustained then the petitioner may be relegated to the Authority to raise such an issue which should be considered and decided by the Authority. That apart, it is submitted that the dispute is pending since the year 1978 and, therefore, the Authority has not committed any illegality by deciding the claim of damages by the impugned order. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Undisputedly, the nature of dispute in hand is covered by the provisions as contained under the Railways Act. Therefore, claim for damages against the Railways to be filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal under Section 13 of the Railway Act. 6. However, counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that in view of clause 1(c) of Section 64 of the Act, the Railway Administration is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Authority. Therefore, claim for damages against the Railways to be filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal under Section 13 of the Railway Act. 6. However, counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that in view of clause 1(c) of Section 64 of the Act, the Railway Administration is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Authority. Therefore, the dispute was maintainable against the Railways. For ready reference, Section 64(1)(c) of the Act is quoted below: "64. Disputes. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any dispute touching the constitution, management or business, or the liquidation of a society shall be referred to the Registrar by any of the parties to the dispute if the parties thereto are among the following: (a) .. (b) .. (c) a person other than a member of the society who has been granted a loan by the society or with whom the society has or had business transactions and any person claiming through such a person." On perusal whereof, it is apparent that the said provision deals with the person other than a member of the society who has been granted loan by the society or with whom the society has or had business transactions. 7. The instant case is of claim for damages against the Railway Administration alleging negligence in the matter of transportation of goods. Such claim, in the opinion of this Court cannot be construed to be a dispute touching the business of the society. The respondent No.1 had business transaction with the respondent No.2 as regards purchase and sale of goods. Therefore, the claim for damages against the agency employed for transportation is found to be beyond the purview of Section 64(1)(c) of the Act. 8. In Deccan Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Dalichand Jugraj Jain, AIR 1969 SC 1320 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the expression "touching the business of a society" in Section 91(1) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, considering the import of the word "business" in this context and observed in paragraph 17 as under: "It is clear that the word "business" in this context does not mean affairs of a society because election of office-bearers, conduct of general meetings and management of a society would be treated as affairs of a society. In this sub-Section the word "business" has been used in a narrower sense and it means the actual trading or commercial or other similar business activity of the society which the society is authorised to enter into under the Act and the Rules and its bye-laws." It is, therefore, clear that the word "business" in the context of the provisions under the Cooperative Societies Act must be construed in a narrower sense as including within its purview only the actual trading or commercial or other similar business activities which the society is authorised to enter into under the Act or its bye-laws. 9. That apart, there is special provision under the Railways Act for raising the claim of damages before the Railway Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 13 of the Railway Act. Therefore, in the teeth of the special provision under the Central Act for raising a dispute/claim for damages before the specified forum, the general provision under Section 64 of the Act for resolution of the dispute shall have no application to the facts of the case in hand. Hence, the contention of the respondent No.1 that the Railway Administration is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Authority under Section 64 of the Act is found to be not sustainable and accordingly rejected. Moreover, in the light of the provision of Section 24 of the Railway Act, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies ought to have transferred the claim proceedings pending before it to the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal instead of assuming the jurisdiction to decide the same on merits. Consequently, the impugned order awarding damages against the petitioner is found to be without jurisdiction. Consequently, the impugned order is quashed. However, the respondent No.1 is at liberty to raise a claim for damages, if any, before the Railway Claims Tribunal as provided for under the Railway Act. 10. Writ petition stands allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid observation.