JUDGMENT E.S. Indiresh, J. - Though, this writ petition was listed before the Court for considering the IA. II of 2020 filed by the impleading respondent, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard finally and disposed of by this order. 2. In this writ petition, petitioners are challenging the order dated 10.03.2020 passed by respondent No.2 produced at Annexure D on the ground that respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in Appeal No.19/2020. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the members of the Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society registered under the provisions of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). 3. Respondent No.3 by order dated 14.05.2019 has disqualified the petitioners for a period of five years under Section 29-C (8) (b) (c) (d) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners herein have filed an appeal under Section 106 of the Act before the District Registrar in Appeal No.3/2019-2020 which came to be dismissed on 08.08.2019 and thereby upheld the disqualification of order dated 14.05.2019. Having not satisfied with the said order, the petitioners have filed W.Ps No.41892-41898/2019 before this Court. This Court, by order dated 25.10.2019 has passed the following order: "ii) The order dated 14.05.2019 passed by second respondent in NO.AR.39/DDS/Dispute/ Disqualification- 14/2018-19 (Annexure-C) and order dated 08.08.2019 passed by the first respondent in Appeal No.DRY:DAP: 03/2019-20 (Annexure-F), in so far as disqualifying the petitioners under Section 29-C (8) (b) (c) (d) stands confirmed only to the extent of disqualifying them. However, with regard to the period of five years imposed on them, is quashed and matter is remitted back to the second respondent to reconsider the prayer of petitioners for imposing lesser period by keeping in mind reply submitted by them to the show cause notice and observation made hereinabove. Said exercise shall be undertaken by the second respondent expeditiously and at any rate, within one week from today." 4. Perusal of the aforesaid order indicates that, this Court has allowed the writ petition in part upholding the order of disqualification, however quashed the period of five years imposed on them and accordingly, remanded the matter to respondent No.2 to reconsider the case of the petitioners afresh. Perusal of the aforesaid order indicates that, this Court has allowed the writ petition in part upholding the order of disqualification, however quashed the period of five years imposed on them and accordingly, remanded the matter to respondent No.2 to reconsider the case of the petitioners afresh. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court stated above, the petitioners had appeared before respondent No.3 and respondent No.3 by order dated 05.11.2019 has reduced the suspension period from five years to a period of six months. In the meanwhile, elections were conducted and petitioners herein were elected by the members of the said Co-operative Society and continued to be the office bearers of the society, as the period of six months had lapsed by then. Thereafter, respondent No.4 issued a notice dated 10.03.2020 as per Annexure C, calling for a meeting to elect the delegates to represent the society before the Primary Agricultural Coperative Society on 13.03.2020. When things stood thus, one Jagadeesh S/o Muthuramu (impleading applicant in this writ petition) has approached respondent No.2 by filing an appeal against the order dated 05.11.2019 passed by respondent No.3 and in the said appeal, respondent No.2 without issuing any notice nor assigning any reasons, has stayed the order on 10.03.2020 and the said order is impugned in the present writ petition. 5. Heard Sri.A.S.Ponnanna, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Smt.Leela P.Devadiga, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Srinivasa Gowda, learned HCGP for respondents No.1 to 3 and Sri.Pruthvi Wodeyar for impleading applicant. 6. Sri.A.S.Ponnanna, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order without application of mind and without giving any notice or providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners herein. He further submitted that Section 106 (2) of the Act provides for period of limitation as 60 days within which an appeal must be preferred. However, in the instant case, respondent No.2, without condoning the delay of nearly 3 1/2 months, has passed the impugned order, which is arbitrary in nature and liable to be quashed at the threshold. He further submitted that Section 106 (2) of the Act provides for period of limitation as 60 days within which an appeal must be preferred. However, in the instant case, respondent No.2, without condoning the delay of nearly 3 1/2 months, has passed the impugned order, which is arbitrary in nature and liable to be quashed at the threshold. He further contended that the impleading applicant-proposed respondent herein, has preferred the appeal at the belated stage and there was no material so as to show sufficient cause to entertain the appeal before respondent No.2 and disputed the issuance of impugned order as one which has been without considering the factual aspect of the case and therefore, he prayed that the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 requires to be set aside by this Court. 7. Learned HCGP submitted that the impugned order is just and proper which do not requires the interference of this Court by exercising jurisdiction under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Sri.Pruthvi Wodeyar learned advocate appearing for the proposed applicant submitted that there is no error or infirmity in the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 and accordingly, he supported and justified the impugned order passed by respondent No.2. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire writ petition papers. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are members of the Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society and the said Society is carrying on banking operation for rural people to meet their financial requirements. The said Co-operative Society has formulated its own byelaws governing its day-to-day internal administration. This Court, by order dated 25.10.2019 in W.Ps No.41892-41898/2019 (Annexure-A) has allowed the writ petitions filed by the petitioners therein, with regard to disqualification period of five years imposed on them and accordingly, remitted back to respondent No.2 to reconsider the prayer of the petitioners for imposing lesser period, keeping in mind the reply submitted by the petitioners to the show cause notice and also directed the respondent No.2 to pass appropriate order within one week from the date of said order. In the meanwhile, the petitioners were elected as members of the Co-operative Society in an election conducted by the Society and since period of six months had lapsed by then and as such, respondent No.3 has passed the order on 05.11.2019 and thereby, the notice dated 10.03.2020 came to be issued by respondent No.4 calling upon for a meeting to elect delegates to represent the Society before Co-operative Society scheduled to be held on 13.03.2020. However, the impleading proposed respondent herein has approached the respondent No.2 by filing an appeal in Appeal No.19/2020 under Section 106 (3) of the Act. Respondent No.2 without considering the question of limitation, as provided under Section 106 (2) of the Act, has passed the impugned order which is contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the same requires to be set aside. It is also to be noted that respondent No.2 ought to have issued notice to the petitioners herein before passing the impugned order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners herein. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is liable to be quashed as the same, is in violation of not following the principles of natural justice and also not considering the period of limitation as provided under Section 106 (2) of the Act. Hence, the following: ORDER 1. Writ petition is allowed. 2. The order dated 10.03.2020 passed in Annexure-D is set aside. 3. The matter is remanded to respondent No.2 to pass appropriate order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 4. It is made clear that respondent No.2 shall consider the statutory provision of Section 106 (2) of the Act before passing any further orders. Ordered accordingly.