JUDGMENT : 1. One of the members of 13th respondent Society, namely, Kyatumkere Milk Producers Women's Co-operative Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Society' for the sake of brevity), has come up in this writ petition impugning the order of second respondent dated 06.05.2017 in permitting the 13th respondent Society for conducting its Annual General Meeting (A.G.M.) within 30 days therefrom for the year 2014-15. Admittedly, the directors of the said Society are respondent Nos. 3 to 12. The records would disclose that 13th respondent Society was required to conduct its A.G.M. on or before 25.09.2015 as prescribed under law. 2. The learned Additional Government Advocate would bring to the notice of this Court that earlier there was scope for the Societies to seek extension of time for conducting A.G.M. by seeking permission from the competent authority and on such application the Society would be normally sanctioned upto 6 months' time for conducting its A.G.M. It is stated that the said procedure/practice is given up by virtue of amendment to Section 27 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. 3. Admittedly, the Directors of the 13th respondent Society, namely, respondent Nos. 3 to 12 were required to conduct A.G.M. for the said Society on or before 25.09.2015. The records would indicate that the same is not conducted. It is seen that there is a letter sent to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies by the Secretary of 13th respondent Society on 26.09.2015 informing that inspite of intimation being given to the Directors of 13th respondent Society no steps are taken for conducting of A.G.M. on or before 25.09.2015. 4. It is in that background, an order dated 07.01.2016 was passed by the second respondent based on a representation of respondent Nos. 3 to 12, granting permission to them to conduct A.G.M. of 13th respondent Society, within 30 days from 07.01.2016. While grating such permission, has imposed a fine of Rs.500/- to each of them for not conducting the A.G.M. within the prescribed time. 5. The said order, which is at Annexure C dated 07.01.2016, was the subject matter of appeal before the first respondent herein by the petitioner in DRY/DAP-10/2015-16 wherein respondent Nos. 2 to 11 were the Directors of 13th respondent Society and 12th respondent was the Secretary of the said Society. The first respondent, after hearing the petitioner and another person as appellants and respondent Nos. 2 to 11 were the Directors of 13th respondent Society and 12th respondent was the Secretary of the said Society. The first respondent, after hearing the petitioner and another person as appellants and respondent Nos. 3 to 12 herein as respondent Nos. 2 to 11 in the said proceedings, set aside the order dated 07.01.2016 of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies and directed him to initiate proceedings against the Directors under Section 27 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, by his order dated 31.03.2017. It is clearly indicated therein that the order dated 07.02.2016 which was passed permitting respondent Nos. 3 to 12 herein to conduct A.G.M. for 13th respondent Society within 30 days is set aside and order imposing fine for giving such permission is also set aside. 6. It is seen that the second respondent has passed further order on 06.05.2017 under Section 27(3) of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 permitting respondent Nos. 3 to 12 herein to conduct A.G.M. of 13th respondent Society for the year 2014-15, within 30 days from the said date on the premise that pursuant to order dated 07.01.2016 of the very same officer respondent Nos. 3 to 12 herein have already deposited the fine amount. Therefore, they are permitted to conduct the A.G.M. within 30 days from the said date. It is this order of second respondent dated 06.05.2017, which is challenged in this writ petition. 7. In these proceedings, after service of notice, respondent Nos. 3 to 12 and 13 have entered appearance through learned counsel Sri Krishnappa, who has filed statement of objections stating that there was in fact an attempt on the part of respondent Nos. 3 to 12 to conduct the A.G.M. of 13th respondent Society prior to 25.09.2015. However, they could not do it for non-cooperation of the then Secretary, against whom they have issued suspension order dated 13.12.2015. Stating that as an excuse, respondents are trying to substantiate the order of first respondent dated 07.01.2016 in permitting them to conduct the A.G.M. belatedly on payment of cost of Rs.500/-. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Krishnappa for respondent Nos. Stating that as an excuse, respondents are trying to substantiate the order of first respondent dated 07.01.2016 in permitting them to conduct the A.G.M. belatedly on payment of cost of Rs.500/-. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Krishnappa for respondent Nos. 3 to 13, this Court would observe that there is no such provision under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 for extension of time to conduct the A.G.M. either by colleting fine or in any other manner. The rule is very clear that the A.G.M. of every co-operative society will have to be completed on or before 25th September of that year. 9. In the instant case, the A.G.M. of 13th respondent Society is pertaining to the year 2014-15, which was required to be completed on or before 25.09.2015, which has not been done and the same is confirmed by the letter, dated 26.09.2015 sent by the Secretary of the 13th respondent Society to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, wherein it is clearly stated by her that despite intimation to the Directors and President of 13th respondent Society, steps are not taken for conducting the A.G.M. for the year 2014-15. 10. In this background, the order dated 07.01.2016 passed by the second respondent and modified order of the same respondent dated 06.05.2017 requires to be set aside as inspite of an order being passed by the 1st respondent setting aside the order of second respondent dated 07.01.2016, he passed order dated 06.05.2017 which clearly indicates that there is total violation of the provision of law by second respondent Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies and also respondent Nos. 3 to 12, who are the Directors of 13th respondent Society in conducting A.G.M. of the Society for the year 2014-15. 11. Even for one more reason also these orders requires to be set aside. 3 to 12, who are the Directors of 13th respondent Society in conducting A.G.M. of the Society for the year 2014-15. 11. Even for one more reason also these orders requires to be set aside. The second respondent being dishonest in passing orders impugned on one hand by order dated 26.07.2016 in AR39/MHA/PR-11/2016-17 he supersede several societies for very same default in respect of various Societies of Mandya District as could be seen in the list which is produced at Annexure-M. When it comes to the 13th respondent Society he would pass altogether different orders, which is nothing but dishonest act on his part which clearly shows that he is not only irresponsible but also dishonest to his office in passing different orders to different Societies for extraneous considerations. 12. In that view of the matter, while setting aside the order dated 07.01.2016 vide Annexure C and also the order dated 06.05.2017 vide Annexure-L, this Court would direct the second respondent herein to issue an order disqualifying the said Society under Section 27(2)(a) of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 and to appoint an administrator to 13th respondent Society within 10 days form the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 13. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of. 14. While disposing of this petition, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is directed to hold an enquiry against the officer who has passed the order under Annexure-C and also of Annexure-M in disqualifying the directorship of 10 Societies as seen in Annexure-M and who has taken a contrary view in so far as the 13th respondent Society is concerned to favour respondent Nos. 3 to 12 in these proceedings.