JUDGMENT D.K. Seth, J.
1. After having been suspended pursuant to the inquiry held, the petitioner was not found guilty of the alleged charges. Therefore, a resolution was taken by the society to reinstate the petitioner on 27th January, 1999 contained in Annexure 3 to the writ petition. But despite 'such resolution, the petitioner has neither been allowed to resume his duties nor has been paid his different of salary for the period during which he was kept under suspension. In these circumstances, the petitioner has made a representation to the District Assistant Registrar but the District Assistant Registrar has not yet decided the petitioner's representation. Mr., Vinod Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the District Assistant Registrar may be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's representation so that the resolution may be implemented by the respondent Society.
2. Mr. K.N. Misra, learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand takes a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the writ petition does not lie against the Co-operative Society. According to him, the petitioner is not governed by any statutory rules or regulations relating to his service. U.P. Agricultural Co-operative Societies Contralized Service Rules, 1976 is applicable in respect of the employees of the concerned society. But the petitioner is not a member of the Centralized Service and as such, he is not governed by the said Rules, 1976. On the other hand, the petitioner is governed by the bye-laws of the Society. As such in relation to the conditions of service of the petitioner, Society does not discharge any statutory obligation and, therefore, by reason of the Full Bench decision, writ does not lie against the co-operative society. In absence of any statutory obligation, the present writ petition is not maintainable. On these grounds, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.
3. I have heard both the learned Counsel at length.
4. Admittedly, by virtue of the Full Bench decision in the case of Radha Charan Sharma v. U.P. Co-operative Federation and Ors., writ petition does not lie against the Co-operative Society. In the present case, the petitioner is also not governed by any statutory rules, which is not disputed in the present case. Therefore, the Society does not discharge any statutory obligation in relation to the petitioner's service, and, therefore, the writ petition against the Co-operative Society cannot be maintained. But at the same time, as pointed out by Mr. Vinod Sinha, the District Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India independent of the Co-operative Society. The grievance of the petitioner as pointed out by Mr. Sinha is that his representation is not being considered by the District Assistant Registrar. As pointed out by Mr. Sinha that the petitioner has no grievance against the society since the Society has already taken a resolution to reinstate the petitioner, but it is only a question for implementation of the said resolution, which can be enforced through the District Assistant Registrar. Therefore, the District Assistant Registrar has a statutory obligation to consider and discharge and exercise his statutory obligation in such matters. As such the writ petition is very much maintainable against the Co-operative Society. In such circumstances, though there is substance in the submission of Mr. K.N. Mistra, but Mr. Sinha having confined his prayer with regard to the obligation of the District Assistant Registrar the writ petition is very much maintainable as against the District Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative Societies. He is under statutory obligation to discharge his duties and functions entrusted on him. If a representation is made seeking implementation of the resolution of the Co-operative Society itself, it is incumbent on the District Assistant Registrar to decide the said question and pass appropriate order. In case the District Assistant Registrar comes to a finding that it is not within the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction conferred upon him, in that even he may communicate the same to the petitioner. The petitioner may then approach the appropriate authority under Section 121 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, if he is so advised. The Registrar is empowered to take appropriate steps in terms whereof whenever circumstances permits. The designation 'Registrar' includes also the District Assistant Registrar so far as the powers conferred on him by the order dated 6.7.1969, wherein certain powers have been delegated on the District Assistant Registrar, is concerned.
5. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the District Assistant Registrar to decide the petitioner's representation in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above, as early as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. The District Assistant Registrar shall communicate his decision to the petitioned as well as to the respondent No. 2, Committee of Management within a period of three weeks from the date of such decision. In case the decision is in the negative; so far as the petitioner is concerned, in that event the same should contain reasons. No costs.
6. Let a certified copy of this order be issued to the learned Counsel on payment of usual charges at the earliest.