S.B.Mjmudar, J. - (1.) in these appeals a short question is on the anvil for consideration. It is as to who is the appellate authority so far as the order of liquidator exercising powers under Section 74 of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short 'the act') is concerned. Under Section 73 of the act the registrar of co-operative societies has got the power to appoint liquidator. Additional director of industries and commerce and ex officio additional registrar (industries) acting as registrar under Section 73 has appointed the liquidator in the present case. That liquidator has passed the order in exercise of powers under Section 74. The said order is brought in challenge before the additional director of industries and commerce and ex officio additional registrar (industries). Submission is the said officer is not entitled to act as appellate authority against the liquidator's order as per Section 106(l)(k) read with sub-section 2(b) of the said Section, and therefore the appellate proceedings are without jurisdiction. Raising this contention the writ petitions were filed by present appellants which came up for consideration before the learned single judge. The learned single judge, on considering all the relevant Provisions of the Act, came to the conclusion that the appeals as filed are perfectly competent and, therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the decision of the additional director who had earlier held on preliminary point that he had jurisdiction to decide the appeals. It is thereafter that the appellants/writ petitioners have filed these appeals challenging the said decision of the learned single judge.
(2.) learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that even though the liquidator was appointed by the same authority before whom the appeal is filed and even though the appointment was made under Section 73 as acting registrar, so far as the appellate jurisdiction is concerned the same is governed by Section 106 and the registrar would not for the purposes of appeal be the 'immediate superior' to the liquidator. Section 106 of the act provides for appeals to the other authorities. Clause (k) of sub-section (1) to Section 106 lays down that, subject to the Provisions of Section 108-a, an appeal shall lie under this Section against any order made by the liquidator of a co-operative society in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Section 74, other than a determination under clause (f) of sub-section (2) of that section. Sub-section (2) of Section 106 lays down the authority to whom the appeal lies. It reads: "(2) an appeal against any Act, decision or order under sub-section (1) shall be made within sixty days from the date of the Act, decision or order (a) if the Act, decision or order was made by the registrar, to the state government, (b) if the Act, decision or order was made by any other officer, to that officer's immediate superior officer."
(3.) the short question is as to who is the immediate superior of the liquidator. So far as this question is concerned, the answer is provided by Section 74 of the Act, which has clearly laid down that liquidator shall have power subject to control of the registrar to do the various acts and discharge the function as laid down by sub-section (2) of Section 74. On this aspect there is no dispute but the learned counsel for appellant submits that to have control over the function of the liquidator in exercise of his powers is something different from being immediate superior for the purpose of hearing so far as his orders are concerned. To highlight this aspect he invited our attention to Section 2-a, sub-section (4) which lays down that: "all officers and persons employed in the administration of this Act, except relating to audit, shall be subject to the superintendence, direction and control of the state government, and the registrar, and the officer or officers, to whom each officer appointed under this Act, shall be subordinate shall be determined by the state government." he submitted that unless the state government has exercised powers under Section 2-a(4) of the Act, to designate the additional director of industries and commerce and ex officio additional registrar in karnataka, Bangalore as appellate authority to the liquidator, Section 106(2)(b) would not get attracted to clothe the said additional director of industries and commerce and ex officio additional registrar, with appellate powers against the order of the liquidator. Now it has to be kept in view that Section 2(i) defines registrar to mean a person under the act and includes additional registrar of co-operative societies amongst others. It cannot be disputed that Section 74, when it refers to the term 'registrar', would also include additional registrar. It is also not in dispute that ex officio additional registrar of industrial co-operatives, who is also the additional director of industries and commerce in exercise of his powers as the registrar under the act has appointed the liquidator in question whose order is sought to be subjected to appeal. Therefore, by operation of sections 73 and 74 he can be said to be the officer under whose control and supervision the liquidator acts. If that is so, it can be said that legislature itself has earmarked this officer, to be the officer to whom the liquidator is subordinate.;