- (1.) THIS writ application has been filed on behalf of the Salaried Employees Cooperative Housing society Ltd. , Mainpuri against the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Uttar Pradesh and the mainpuri Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. , Mainpuri.
(2.) A piece of land was being acquired at the instance of the petitioner, the Salaried Employees co-operative Housing Society Ltd. This land was also needed by the opposite, party 2, the mainpuri Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and with respect to this land, therefore, there was a dispute between the two Societies. The dispute was referred to an arbitrator, Sri Tirlok Chand, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 115, U. P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1936. The arbitrator gave his decision on 17-5-1949 and by that award, he wanted to divide the land half and half between the two Societies. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Assistant Registrar in accordance with the provisions of Rule 133 of the said Rules. The Assistant Registrar on 10-1-1950 allowed the appeal and held that the petitioner was entitled to the whole land. This order was revised by the Registrar under Rule 135 on 6-11-1950. The Registrar set aside the order of the Assistant Registrar dated 10-1-1950 and restored the order of the arbitrator dated 17-5-1949. The opposite party 2 had filed an application for revision of the order of the Assistant registrar on 8-4-1950 i. e. , within a period of a little over three months, but the order of the registrar, as we have already said, was passed on 6-11-1950, that is, almost after ten months of the order of the Assistant Registrar.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has raised two points. His contention is that under Rule 135, the Registrar could revise the Assistant Registrar's order only within six months and the six months having expired, he had no jurisdiction to revise that order. Learned counsel has also contended that Rule 115 of the Rules is 'ultra vires' as it is not covered by Section 43, sub-section (2), Clause (1), Co-operative Societies Act, 1912. We are not satisfied that the second contention has any force. Section 43, Sub-section (1) gives the State Government right to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act for any registered society or class of such societies. Sub-section (2) starts with the words "in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power such rules may". No doubt Clause (L) of Section 43, sub-section (2) does no deal with cases of disputes between two independent Societies and is confined to cases of disputes between a Society and its members or past members. But sub-section (1) is wide enough to include a dispute between two Societies and the rules made thereunder are, therefore, perfectly valid. The reference of the dispute to arbitration and the award given by Tirlok Chand cannot, therefore, be said to be 'ultra vires' or without jurisdiction.;