R. L. Gulati, J. - (1.) On 28th December, 1967 an annual general meeting of the Sahkari Samiti, Vrindabati Bangar, district Mathura, was held and certain Directors were elected. Thereafter the election of office-bearers was to be held on 4th January, 1968. A day earlier, on 3rd of January, 1968, on a complaint, the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mathura, respondent No. 3, passed an order staying the election of the office bearers. In spite of this stay order, the election was held at the petitioner's residence and he got himself elected as the President. The petitioner says that the stay order was not communicated to him. To my mind that makes no difference. Any action taken in contravention of the stay order where communicated or not is invalid. However, since I am not dealing with the merits of the case, it is not necessary to pronounce any final judgment on this point.
(2.) An application for setting aside the election of the Directors was made on 3rd January, 1968. This application was referred to an Arbitrator, Sri Brij Mohan Yadav, respondent No. 4, under Rule 116 of the Co-operative Societies Rules, 1936 on 5th February, 1968. On 25th of March, 1968 the arbitrator gave an award setting aside the election of the petitioner. The petitioners first appeal before the third respondent was dismissed on 4th July, 1968. On 19th July, 1968 a second appeal filed by the petitioner was admitted by respondent No. 2, the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Agra. Ultimately the Respondent No. 2 rejected this appeal on the ground that no second appeal lay under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1965.
(3.) It is no doubt true that the Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, came into force with effect from 26th January, 1968 and this Act does not contain a provision for a second appeal. But there was a provision for a second appeal under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 and the rules framed thereunder. Rule 133-A of the Rules, 1936, provided for a second appeal. The elections which were held on 26-12-1967 and 4-1-1968 had taken place before the coming into force of the new Act. It is a well settled principle that a right of appeal is a substantive right which is attached to a cause of action at the moment it arises. Since the elections were held at the time when the old Act was in force, all proceedings in relation to them by way of appeal etc. would be governed by the old Act and the rules framed thereunder. As I have indicated above, under the old rule a second appeal was clearly available. In the circumstances the second respondent committed a manifest error in holding that no second appeal lay. The view that have taken is supported by a decision of this Court in Thakur Dass v. Chagun Lal, 1971 A.L.J. 1077 .;