Jagdish Sahai, J. - (1.) Raja Himanshu Dhar Singh, who is a member of the Hind Provincial Flying Club, has come up to his Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari be issued quashing the order passed by the respondent No. 1 the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U. P., Lucknow, on the 3rd of October, 1960.
(2.) The Hind Provincial Flying Club (hereinafter referred to as the Club) is a society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. According to the allegations made by the petitioner the respondent No. 2 Sri B. P. Singh, who is the secretary of the club, issued a notice calling the tenth annual general meeting of the Club at the Club Office for the 15th of May, 1960, at 4 p. m. It is further alleged that notices under the signature of the respondent No. 2 were served on the members of the Club-On the morning of 15th of May, 1960, a notice was published in the local newspapers to the effect that the meeting scheduled to be held that day at 4 p. m. had been cancelled. Some of the members however assembled at the scheduled time on the appointed day and a meeting was in fact field. The respondent No. 2 treating the proceedings of the meeting mentioned above to be invalid, moved the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U. P., (hereinafter called the Deputy Registrar) to decide the dispute as required by the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act (hereinafter called the Act). The Deputy Registrar referred the matter for arbitration, to the Assistant Registrar purporting to act under Rule 115 of the rules framed under the Act. The Assistant Registrar gave his award and declared the meeting dated the 15th of May, 1960, to have been regularly held and further held that the proceedings of that meeting were valid. The respondent No. 2 aggrieved by the award mentioned above filed an appeal before the respondent No. 1 the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U. P., (hereinafer called the Additional Registrar). The Additional Registrar allowed the appeal and set aside the award made by the Assistant Registrar by his order dated 3rd of October, 1960. It is that order which is sought to be quashed.
(3.) I have heard Mr. H. L. Varma in support of the petition and Mr. Jagdish Swarup and Mr. Sridhar Misra for the respondents. Four submissions have been made by Mr. Varma before me. They are: 1. No appeal lay to the Registrar Or the Additional Registrar nor was a revision application competent. 2. Rules 133 and 135 are ultra vires because they are outside the scope of the powers conferred by the Act on the State Government to frame rules. 3. The Secretary had no authority to cancel the meeting.;