ORDER Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal 1. Appellant is aggrieved of the order dated 8.11.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.30166/2024 (Pawan Jayantilal Patidar v. Naval Singh Cooperative Sugar Factory Limited and others), whereby, learned Single Judge has upheld the orders of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, dated 25.9.2024, whereby, appellant who is working as Office Superintendent has been directed to appear before the Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Sugar Factory Federation Limited, Vindhyachal Bhawan, Bhopal, to examine some feasibility report furnished by one Basant Sugar Factory, Puna, in relation to some sugar factory at Kailaras, District Morena. 2. Two fold submissions have been raised by the learned counsel for appellant, firstly, Registrar is not the appointing authority and, secondly, there is no public interest involved. 3. Shri Aditya Khandekar, learned counsel for respondents, submits that in terms of the provisions contained in section 49-C of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, Registrar is entitled to issue such orders as are necessary in public interest and in support places reliance on Clause-34 of the copy of bylaws, enclosed by the respondents as Annx.R/3. 4. Thus, it is submitted that since the impugned order which is also enclosed by the respondents, Shri Khandekar, learned counsel, as Annx.R/2, with his reply, it is pointed out that Registrar is authorised to pass such orders and they do not call for any indulgence/interference. 5. After going through the impugned communication dated 23.9.2024, it is evident that there is no whisper of appellant being transferred in public interest from Burhanpur to Bhopal. There is no mention of the fact that how appellant is competent to examine a technical report furnished by some institute of Puna and, therefore, prima facie, it appears that the impugned order has been passed with an oblique motive in the name of public interest without mentioning any public interest in the impugned order. There is no mention of the fact that how appellant is competent to examine a technical report furnished by some institute of Puna and, therefore, prima facie, it appears that the impugned order has been passed with an oblique motive in the name of public interest without mentioning any public interest in the impugned order. Therefore, such impugned order cannot be given a seal of approval and, consequently, the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge to uphold such order cannot be given approval in absence of there being any disclosure of public interest in the impugned order or there being any material brought on record by the respondents to show public interest in shifting the appellant from Burhanpur to Bhopal and, therefore, impugned order of transfer dated 23.9.2024, and consequential order of learned Single Judge, which has not taken into consideration the aspect of absence of public interest cannot be given seal of approval. Both the orders are quashed. 6. At this stage, Shri Khandekar, learned counsel for respondents, submits that the order passed by the Registrar is appealable before the learned Cooperative Tribunal, but fact of the matter is that when the order is patently illegal and devoid of authority, as vested in the Registrar under section 49-C of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, then that order could not have been given a seal of approval by the learned Single Judge. Appeal is allowed and disposed of.