ORDER : Ravi Malimath, J. The case of the petitioners is that they are members of the 3rd respondent-Society which is registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'). By the order of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies a direction was issued that all members of the Society of the respondent-Society to register their apartments by paying the stamp duty as applicable. In 2004 the 2nd respondent namely, the Registrar issued Model Bye-law for the respondent-Society as well as other three Societies. The said bye-law is withdrawn and in the year 2005 a fresh Bye-law was brought about by the 2nd respondent. They submitted a representation to him with regard to the anomalies found in the new bye-law. That they were not heard before the new Bye-law was brought into effect etc. Thereafter various authorities including the Hon'ble Minister for Co-operation had directed the 2nd respondent to withdraw the subsequent Bye-law in the year 2005. The same was not done. The Government referred the same to the Department of Law which gave an opinion that the Bye-law should be withdrawn. Even then it was not done. The Government by exercising its suo motu powers under Section 108 passed an order on 4-11-2006 vide Annexure-P wherein Bye-Law No. 3.13 was deleted. Since that was only part of the relief sought for, the petitioners filed the instant revision to take action under Section 108 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act before the Government. By the impugned order, the revision was disposed off as being not maintainable. Hence, the present petition. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the revision petition under Section 108 is maintainable before the Government and it is for the Government to exercise its powers and thereafter to go into the merits of the claim put forth. 3. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate defends the impugned order. 4. On hearing learned Counsels, I am of the view that appropriate relief requires to be granted. Section 108 of the Act is with reference to the powers of the State Government which can be exercised suo motu or on an application of any person aggrieved therein and various other clauses. The aggrieved person is the member of the Society. They are aggrieved by the Bye-law. Exercising revisional powers under Section 70 for settling such a dispute is beyond law. The aggrieved person is the member of the Society. They are aggrieved by the Bye-law. Exercising revisional powers under Section 70 for settling such a dispute is beyond law. Section 70 does not contemplate a dispute between a member and the Registrar. In the instant case, Model Bye-law has been initiated by the Registrar. Section 70 is only with regard to disputes between the members of the Society or as narrated therein. It does not include any dispute vis-a-vis between the member and the Registrar. The same is apparently covered by the provisions of Section 108. Therefore, the finding of the Government that it is not maintainable is incorrect. Consequently, the petitions are allowed, holding that the revision petition is maintainable. Consequently, the 1st respondent is directed to hear the petitioners and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. The petitioners shall appear before the 1st respondent on 28th September, 2015. In view of the long pendency of the dispute the 1st respondent shall pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioners within a period of 6 months from that date. All contentions of the parties are kept open. Rule made absolute.