R.R.Misra, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition the petitioner have challenged the order dated 16-11-1987 passed by the'District Assistant Registrar. Co-operative Society, Etawah, respondent 1. By the said impugned order he in exercise of powers conferred under Section 29 (4) of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) had appointed Sbri Jai Veer Singh, respondent 2. as Administrator of U. P. Government Roadways Employees Co-operative Credit Society, Etawah.
(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The grievance of the petitioners, as stated in the writ petition, is that the said Shri Jai Veer Singh is not a member of the Society and is a rank outsider and, therefore, in view of the circular dated 20-9-1984, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure No. V to the writ petition, issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, the said appointment could not be made by the aforesaid District Assistant Registrar. In the case of Raghuvir Singh v. State of U. P., [Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 14960 of 1984, decided on 2-3-1987 and reported in 1987 UPLBEO 433; (1983) All LJ 529, relevant page 445] in a similar condition the said argument was repelled by this Court in para 27 of the said judgment by observing as follows : "27. We are not impressed with the argument put forward by Shri Chauhan to the effect that the Administrator appointed under Section 29 (4) (b) has necessarily to be a member of the Committee of Management. No such limitation or qualification may be found incorporated expressly or by implication in Section 29." We are ia respectful agreement with the aforesaid view of the Division Bench in the case cited above and are of the opinion that the argument raised on behalf of the petitioners has got no substance. From a perusal of the relevant provision contained in Section 29 (4) (b) of the Act, we find that there is no such limitation as is alleged by the learned couastl for the petitioners. in our opinion, under the aforesaid provision even an outsider who is not a member of the Society can be appointed as an Administrator as has been done by the impugned order.
(3.) The second submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the District Assistant Registrar is appointed under Section 3 (2) of the Act to assist the Registrar. He has further relied upon the Dictionary meaning of the word 'assist' as stated in the Webster IIIrd International Dictionary, wherein word 'assist' has been stated to mean "to help, stand by, to give support or aid." The argument developed by the learned counsel (or the petitioners is that having regard to the circular aforesaid issued by the Registrar, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure No. V to the writ petition, it was not open to the District Assistant Registrar to go against the same. From a perusal of the-said circular, it is clear that it has only laid down guidelines for the appointment of an Administrator. It has been specifically stated in the laid circular that a person sought to be appointed as Administrator should be a major and should have faith in the Co-operative movements and must not have been a person eligible under Rule 453 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968 framed under the Act.;