Hari Swarup, J. - (1.) THESE two petitions raise common questions of law In either case a reference under Section 70 of the U.P. Co -operative Societies Act was made to the District Magistrate, acting as the Registrar and was transferred by him to the Respondent No. 3 under Section 71 of the Act and the same are pending there. The only difference between the two cases is that in the case of Rampal Singh the District Magistrate has referred the dispute, to Sri Fasi Uddin describing him as SDO while in the case of Sohan Singh Sisodia it has been referred to the Sub -Divisional Magistrate. Petition No. 7287 of 1974 has been filed against the reference pending before Sri Fasiuddin, Sub -Divisional Officer Iglas. According to the Respondents he is also the Sub -Divisional Magistrate of the Sub -Division Iglas. A reference was made to the District Magistrate acting as the Registrar Under the U.P. Co -operative Societies Act and he in turn referred it to the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Koil for arbitration. Subsequently the case was withdrawn from his file and transferred to the file of Shri Fasiuddin, Sub -Divisional Officer, Iglas by an order of the District Magistrate dated 8 -9 -1974.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioners has challenged the proceedings on the ground that the District Magistrate was not Registrar within the meaning of the Act and the entertainment of the reference by him under Section 70 of the Act was invalid. For the same reason according to the Petitioner reference made to Sri Fasiuddin was invalid. Additionally it has been urged that the reference to Sri Fasiuddin in the capacity of Sub -Divisional Officer was also bad and he cannot deal with the matter. According to the learned Counsel the State Government under Section 3 of the Act can appoint a person as Registrar of the Co -operative Society for the State and then appoint other person to assist him under Sub -section (2) of Section 3. The contention is that powers can be conferred only on a particular person who has been appointed to assist the Registrar, and powers cannot be conferred on the District Magistrate in his official capacity. In the present case admittedly power of the Registrar under Sub -section (2) of Section 3 has been conferred on the District Magistrate not as a natural person but in his capacity as District Magistrate. The first question therefore, that arises is whether such an appointment or conferment of power is valid. The relevant Notification is in the following termss: Sahkarita Vibhag. Notification No. 3328 -C -XII C.A. 25(1) -67 dated June 24, 1969. In exercise of the powers under Sub -section (2) of Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Co -operative Societies Act, 1968 (U.P., Act XI of 1968) the Governor is pleased to confer, subject to the provisions of the said Act and the rules, made thereunder, the powers of the Registrar under that Act and the rules, to be exercised as follows: (1).... (2).... (3) An officer for the time being holding the post of District Magistrate of a district shall exercise the powers of the Registrar under Sections 70, 71 and 98 of the Act in respect of the disputes relating to the Constitution of the Committee of Management or election or appointment of any office -bearer or a delegate of a Co -operative Society, other than an apex Co -operative Society, having headquarters within the district; (4).... (5).... (6) The powers relating to reference of the disputes to the Registrar under Section 70 and the decision on such disputes under Section 71 shall be exercised as provided in Rules 229 and 230.
(3.) ACCORDING to the learned Counsel this Notification does not make any appointment but only confers powers. I am unable to agree with the learned Counsel that the appointment under - Sub -section (2) of Section 3 means the appointment of any person at any particular post. The words are appoint to assist the Registrar which mean to charge of a person with duty to assist he Registrar. If a person has been charged with such a duty then he has been appointed to assist the Registrar. By the present Notification the District Magistrate has been charged with such a duty. It must, therefore, be held that he has been appointed to assist the Registrar. Similarly the argument that a particular individual by name should have been appointed has no merit. Sub -section (2) of Section 3 requires an appointment of a person to assist the Registrar. When the Notification says that "an officer holding the post of District Magistrate" it means a person holding the post of the District Magistrate, because an officer can be none else than a person. The word officer in the notification Refers to the person who for the time being holds the post of District Magistrate. The Notification accordingly cannot be held not to appoint the District Magistrate as a person to assist the Registrar.;