ORDER 1. By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 8.7.2019 (Annexure P/11) passed by the M.P. State Co-operative Tribunal, Bhopal, whereby it has reversed the order dated 21.3.2013 (Annexure P/8) passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ujjain Division, Ujjain. 2. For the purpose of decision of this petition, the facts need not be narrated in detail. Suffice is to say that the petitioner was appointed in the services of the respondent society on 1.7.1982 on the post of Lower Division Clerk and was later on promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk on 29.6.1990. Subsequently, he was authorized as a Sales Officer by order dated 24.7.2007. In the meanwhile by order dated 12.12.2002 the banking license of the respondent was cancelled by the Reserve Bank of India pursuant to which by letter dated 21.3.2003 the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ujjain liquidated the respondent bank and appointed the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Mandsaur as its liquidator. 3. On 9.8.2007, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for termination of his services. Being aggrieved the petitioner preferred revision before the M.P. State Co-operative Tribunal which was decided by order dated 5.5.2008 and the petitioner was directed to file a dispute under section 55(2) or 64 of M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. During pendency of the revision, by order dated 13.11.2007 the respondent terminated the petitioner. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed a dispute under section 55(2) of the Act, 1960 before the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ujjain. Therein an application under Order 7 rule 11 of the CPC was preferred by the respondent in which various objections were raised one of which was to the effect that in view of section 82(2) of the Act, 1960 the petitioner ought to have obtained prior sanction from the Registrar before filing of the dispute. By order dated 28.2.2009 (Annexure P/5), the said issue was decided in favour of the petitioner and it was held that he was not required to seek any prior permission from the Registrar prior to filing of the dispute. However, the contention of the respondent as regards the claim of the petitioner being barred by time was accepted in view of which his dispute was dismissed. The said order was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner before the M.P. State Co-operative Tribunal. However, the contention of the respondent as regards the claim of the petitioner being barred by time was accepted in view of which his dispute was dismissed. The said order was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner before the M.P. State Co-operative Tribunal. It is pertinent to mention here that the finding recorded by the Joint Registrar that no permission was required to be obtained by the petitioner under section 82(2) of the Act, 1960 was not challenged by the respondent before the Tribunal nor was such a point raised in the arguments. 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 26.11.2010, the petitioner preferred W.P. No.1571/2011 before this Court which was allowed by order dated 26.11.2010 and the matter was remanded back to the Joint Registrar to decide the dispute of the petitioner on merits without going into the question of limitation. Thereafter, by order dated 21.03.2013 (Annexure P/8), the dispute raised by the petitioner was decided in his favour by the Joint Registrar and the order dated 13.11.2007 passed by the respondent was set aside. Being aggrieved by the order aforesaid, the respondent preferred an appeal under section 78(1) of the Act, 1960 before the M.P. State Co-operative Tribunal. Being aggrieved by the same order in so far as it had not awarded any backwages to him, the petitioner also preferred a cross objection before the Tribunal. By the impugned order dated 08.07.2019, the Tribunal has held that the petitioner was required to obtain permission from the Registrar prior to raising / filing of dispute which has not been done by him which is noncompliance of mandatory provision of section 82(2) of the Act, 1960 in view of which his claim could not have been entertained and adjudicated upon merits by the Joint Registrar. Consequently, the order passed by the Joint Registrar has been set aside and the petitioner has been permitted to comply with the provisions of section 82(2) of the Act, 1960 and has been given the liberty to file a fresh dispute. 5. In my considered opinion, the said order passed by the Tribunal is illegal and contrary to law. Consequently, the order passed by the Joint Registrar has been set aside and the petitioner has been permitted to comply with the provisions of section 82(2) of the Act, 1960 and has been given the liberty to file a fresh dispute. 5. In my considered opinion, the said order passed by the Tribunal is illegal and contrary to law. At an earlier stage of proceedings, a specific objection was raised by the respondent before the Joint Registrar to the effect that in absence of obtaining prior permission from the Registrar, the petitioner could not have filed his dispute and since there was violation of mandatory provisions of section 82(2) of the Act, 1960 his claim could not have been entertained. On the said objection, a specific question was framed by the Joint Registrar and by his order dated 28.2.2019, he decided the same in favour of the petitioner holding that no permission was required to be obtained by the petitioner from the Registrar prior to filing of the dispute. The said finding was not challenged by the respondent either before the Tribunal or before this Court at any subsequent stage of proceedings. Even after remand of the matter back to the Joint Registrar by this Court by order dated 28.2.2012 this issue was not raised. Thus, the issue as regards obtaining of prior permission by the petitioner from the Registrar under section 82(2) attained finality and stood decided in favour of the petitioner. The same could not have been reopened at any subsequent stage of proceedings as has been done by the Tribunal by way of the impugned order. The same could not have been done even on the ground that the provision is a mandatory provision and ought to have been complied with by the petitioner prior to filing of his dispute. Rightly or wrongly a finding was recorded in favour of the petitioner by the Joint Registrar by order dated 28.2.2009 which was not challenged by the respondent and the same issue could not have been reconsidered at a subsequent stage as has illegally been done by the Tribunal. 6. Consequently, the impugned order dated 8.7.2019 passed by the M.P. State Co-operative Tribunal, Bhopal cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to it for decision of the case on merits. 6. Consequently, the impugned order dated 8.7.2019 passed by the M.P. State Co-operative Tribunal, Bhopal cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to it for decision of the case on merits. It is to be noted that since the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation, the Tribunal would be required to decide his dispute only in respect of backwages and any other retiral benefits to which he may be entitled. Till decision of the appeal by the Tribunal, the order dated 16.12.2019 (Annexure P/12) issued by the respondent shall be kept in abeyance. The appeal be decided by the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.