JUDGMENT 1. The Citizens Cooperative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Bank), registered under Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 since repealed by Act of 1989 and exclusively dealing in Banking Business since its inception in year 1978 having a network of 11 branches and 4 extension counters in twin districts of Jammu and Samba with petitioner No. 2 as the elected chairman of its Board of Directors is aggrieved of Order No. 29-B&F of 2015 dated 17-09-2015 passed by Respondent No. 2 Registrar Cooperative Societies, J&K, Srinagar by virtue whereof Shri Inder Jeet Joint Registrar (Banking and Finance) Cooperative Societies J&K has been appointed as the Administrator to manage the affairs of the Citizens Cooperative Bank Ltd. in absence of elected Board of Directors with direction to make arrangements for constitution of new Committee/Board of Directors through the process of elections. Petitioners seek quashment of the aforesaid order impugned in the instant writ petition on various grounds. 2. Mr. R.S. Jamwal, learned Dy.AG appeared for respondent No. 1 while Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ankesh Chandel, Advocate appeared for respondents 2 and 3 as Caveators. Caveats shall stand discharged. 3. Heard the rival sides at the pre-admission stage. 4. The case set up by petitioners is that the elections for the Managing Committee (Board of Directors) were held on 18.09.2012. Nine members (Directors) including petitioner No. 2 were declared elected for a period of three years. Rule 16 of J&K Cooperative Societies Rules 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) was amended by virtue of SRO 1, dated 04-01-2005 in terms whereof Committee/Board of Directors was authorised and empowered to hold elections and appoint returning officer for such purpose. However, the Committee/Board of Directors was not in existence in the year 2012 when elections were due and the Committee/Board of Directors had been superseded by virtue of Order No. 13/B&F of 2010, dated 24-08-2010 passed by Respondent No. 2 and Divisional Commissioner, Jammu was appointed as Administrator, the Divisional Commissioner had appointed Additional Deputy Commissioner as Returning Officer that is why the elections result was declared by Additional Deputy Commissioner on 18-09-2012. The elected Board had to continue till 19.09.2015 in view of provisions of Section 29 of Cooperatives Societies Act, 1989 as the result was received by the Managing Director of Citizens Cooperative Bank on 19-09-2012. The elected Board had to continue till 19.09.2015 in view of provisions of Section 29 of Cooperatives Societies Act, 1989 as the result was received by the Managing Director of Citizens Cooperative Bank on 19-09-2012. Before the elected Board could complete its tenure, the Rules were again amended through medium of SRO 236, dated 25.04.2013 conferring powers upon Registrar, Cooperative Societies to hold elections. This came to be challenged by way of OWP No. 1368/2013, titled Yash Pal v. State of J&K and Ors. One of the shareholders of the Bank too challenged SRO 236, dated 25.04.2013 by filing OWP No. 1166/2015 wherein an interim direction was passed on 26.08.2015 staying the operation of the aforesaid SRO. 5. It is contended that in view of the mandate of Section 29(3) of Cooperative Societies Act, 1989 the elected Committee/Board of Directors, in order to make arrangements for holding elections for constitution of new management committee within 90 days before the expiry of its term, held a Board meeting on 16.06.2015 under Chairmanship of petitioner No. 2 and resolved to request the Registrar Cooperative Societies to hold elections under the rules. A communication dated 16.06.2015 was accordingly forwarded to respondent No. 2. On 25.08.2015 respondent No.2 addressed a communication to Managing Director of the Bank conveying that SRO 236 of 2013, stood stayed and steps were being taken for vacation of interim order. Since there was ambiguity in regard to conduct of elections, on 26.08.2015, Managing Director of the Bank addressed a communication to respondent No. 2 requesting him to fix schedule for holding of elections. Since no response was received from respondent No. 2 and term of elected Board was about to expire, petitioner No. 2 addressed communication dated 09.09.2015 to respondent No.2 requesting him either to permit the management to hold elections or allow the management of the Bank to continue till elections were conducted by respondent No.2 himself. Respondent No. 2 responded to this communication on 16.09.2015 and conveyed to petitioner No. 2 that since SRO 1 of 2005, stood amended vide SRO 236; dated 25.04.2015, it was for Registrar to hold elections and the management of the Bank could not conduct the elections itself. It is contended that neither respondent No. 2 himself ordered the holding of elections nor permitted the management of Bank to hold the same. It is contended that neither respondent No. 2 himself ordered the holding of elections nor permitted the management of Bank to hold the same. It is further contended that in view of staying of SRO 236, it was obligatory on the part of respondent No. 2 to permit the Managing Committee/ Board of Directors to hold elections. However, respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order bearing No. 29-B&F of 2015, dated 17.09.2015 by virtue whereof respondent No. 3 has been appointed as Administrator to manage the affairs of the Bank and make , arrangements for constitution of new committee/ Board through the process of elections. The impugned order is assailed on the ground that the same is illegal, bad and unconstitutional and required to be quashed on the ground that respondent No.2 was under a statutory obligation to permit the elected Board of the Bank to hold elections for constitution of new management committee in as much as SRO 236, dated 25.04.2013 authorising Registrar Cooperative Societies to order holding of elections had been stayed by this Court in two different writ petitions. It is contended that the petitioners had approached respondent Nc. 2 well in time to start the process of holding elections and respondent No. 2 had failed to discharge its statutory obligations by neither permitting the duly elected Board to hold elections nor himself ordered the holding of elections. It is contended that appointment of respondent No. 3 as Administrator by attributing to petitioners its failure to hold elections could not be justified. It is further contended that in similar circumstances orders passed by respondent No. 2 appointing administrators of three cooperative societies have been stayed in terms of interim order dated 13.03.2015 passed in OWP No. 276/2015. Consequently the management of aforesaid three societies was restored back to elected Board of Directors in terms of communication dated 01.04.2015 from respondent No.2 to Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies directing the latter to implement the interim order dated 13.03.2015. 6. J&K Cooperative Societies Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) consolidates and amends the law relating to cooperative societies in the State. 6. J&K Cooperative Societies Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) consolidates and amends the law relating to cooperative societies in the State. Under Section 4 of the Act, a Cooperative Society which has as its object the promotion of the economic interests of its members in accordance with cooperative principles, or a cooperative society established with the object of facilitating the operations of such a society, or a cooperative society established for carrying out any of the objects specified in Section 113 may be registered under the Act. Section 33 of the Act provides that the final registration of a cooperative society shall render it a body corporate by the name under which it is registered, having a perpetual succession and a common seal with power to hold property, enter into contracts, institute and defend suits and other legal proceedings and to do all things necessary for the purpose for which it was constituted. Citizens Cooperative Bank is a society registered under Cooperative Society Act of 1960 since repealed by the Act of 1989 and is said to be exclusively dealing with banking business. It being an existing society within the meaning of Section 172 of the Act, is deemed to be registered under the Act. The Bank is not a statutory creation. It is only a body corporate governed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 26 of the Act is loud and clear in stating that the final authority in a Cooperative Society shall vest in the general body of its members. Section 29 of the Act provides for election and nomination of members of Committees. It provides that the members of the committee of a cooperative society shall be elected in such manner as may be prescribed and no person shall be elected unless he is a shareholder of the society. It further provides that the term of office of the committee shall be three years. It is further provided that each committee shall within 90 days before expiry of its term make arrangements for the constitution of a new committee in accordance with the provisions of the Act and rules and bye-laws made thereunder. It further provides that the term of office of the committee shall be three years. It is further provided that each committee shall within 90 days before expiry of its term make arrangements for the constitution of a new committee in accordance with the provisions of the Act and rules and bye-laws made thereunder. It further provides that where any committee has ceased to hold office and no committee has been constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Act and rules and bye-laws made thereunder, the government or the Registrar may pass an order appointing a Board of Management or Administrator for such period as may be specified therein and such Board of Management or Administrator shall, before expiry of its period of appointment, arrange for the constitution of a new committee. The Board of Management or Administrator may be appointed for a period not exceeding three months and in circumstances beyond its control, six months and the elections shall be held within such period for re-constitution of the Committee or the Board. Government appears to have appointed Boards of Management for managing the affairs of JAKFED, J&K State Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, J&K State Cooperative Bank, Baramulla Central Cooperative Bank, Anantnag Central Cooperative Bank, State Cooperative Bank from time to time. On a plain reading of these provisions, it emerges that the final authority in a cooperative society vests in the general body of its members and not the Registrar of Cooperative Societies or the State Government. No doubt cooperative societies including the petitioner Bank are subject to the control of statutory authorities like the Registrar and the government but it cannot be said that the State exercises direct or indirect control over the affairs of the society which is all pervading. The statutory authorities do exercise some powers to regulate and supervise the affairs of a cooperative society but'exercise of such powers does not render the cooperative society as an instrumentality of the State. Law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Ors. decided on 07.10.2013 is emphatically supports this conclusion. Section 29 of the Act speaks of no ambiguity in so far as constitution of a new committee is concerned. Law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Ors. decided on 07.10.2013 is emphatically supports this conclusion. Section 29 of the Act speaks of no ambiguity in so far as constitution of a new committee is concerned. It is the statutory obligation of an elected committee enjoying a statutory term of three years to make arrangements for constitution of a new committee by holding elections within 90 days before the expiry of its term. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the previous election was conducted and result was declared by Returning Officer on 18.09.2012 and since the election result is said to have been received by the managing director of the Bank only on 19.09.2012, the elected committee was to continue till 19.09.2015 and it was under statutory obligation to set in motion the electoral process for constitution of a new committee within 90 days before expiry of its term i.e. on or before 19th of June, 2015. It further appears that in terms of SRO 1, dated 04.01.2005, Sub Rules 1 and 2 of Rule 16 of the Rules were recast, by virtue whereof governing body of the society was to specify the date of election of members of the committee/board within three months of expiry of its term and the managing committee/board was to appoint the returning officer. It further appears that in terms of SRO 236, dated 25.04.2013, Rule 16 was again amended and powers to hold election of committee/board were conferred upon the Registrar who was authorised to specify the date of elections which were to be held under the control of Assistant Commissioner Revenue within whose jurisdiction the registered office of the cooperative society was situated. Power to appoint returning officer and other officers was also conferred upon him. SRO 236, dated 25.04.2013 came to be challenged through the medium of OWP No. 1368/2013. In terms of order dated 18.03.2014, operation of SRO 236 dated 25.04.2013 was stayed. Same interim direction came to be passed in OWP No. 1166/2015. Petitioner claims to have held a board meeting on 16.06.2015 before expiry of its term and resolved to approach the Registrar for holding of elections. Communication dated 16.06.2015 is said to have been addressed to Registrar in this regard. Same interim direction came to be passed in OWP No. 1166/2015. Petitioner claims to have held a board meeting on 16.06.2015 before expiry of its term and resolved to approach the Registrar for holding of elections. Communication dated 16.06.2015 is said to have been addressed to Registrar in this regard. According to petitioner, it was on 25.08.2015 that the Registrar addressed a communication to petitioner conveying that SRO 236 of 2013, had been stayed, steps were being taken for vacation of interim orders and action shall be taken accordingly. Petitioner claims to have addressed yet another communication dated 26.08.2015 to respondent No. 2 requesting for fixing the time schedule for holding of elections. Since there was no response, petitioner wrote to respondent No. 2 to either permit the petitioner to hold election or extend the term of the management of the Bank to continue till elections were conducted. On 16.09.2015, respondent No. 2 appears to have addressed a communication to petitioner informing that the management of Bank cannot conduct the elections itself. Thus, respondent No. 2 neither permitted the management of Bank to hold elections in terms of mandate of Section 29 of the Act nor did he himself set the electoral process in motion. Instead he passed the impugned order dated 17.09.2015 invoking provision engrafted in Section 29(4) of the Act appointing respondent No. 3 as Administrator of Board of Directors which is assailed through the medium of instant petition on the grounds enumerated therein. 7. After hearing learned counsel and having regard for the mandate of provision engrafted in Section 29(3) of the Act coupled with the fact that SRO 236 of 2013, dated 25.04.2013 has been stayed in terms of interim directions passed in OWP No. 1368/2013, CMA No. 58/2013, dated 18.03.2014 and OWP No. 1166/2015, MP No. 01/2015, dated 26.08.2015, a prima facie case for grant of interim relief is made out. 8. Issue notice to the respondents in main petition as also in miscellaneous petition, returnable within four weeks. Requisite steps for service upon the respondents within one week. As an ad-interim, the operation of impugned Order No. 29-B&F of 2015 dated 17.09.2015 passed by respondent No.2 shall stay. 9. List immediately after service is complete. 10. Alteration/modification on laying motion. Impugned order stayed