T.U. Mehta, C.J.
1. In pursuance of Section 35-A of the Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1969, the Registrar Co-operative Societies by his order dated 10-5-1976 constituted an ad hoc committee of Salon Co-operative Agricultural Services Society. At that time the committee was constituted of five members as mentioned in. the order. The life of this committee was extended by the Government up to 9-5-1979 under sub-Sub-section (2) of Section 35-A. This was done on 19-7-1978 as per Annexure PC. Thereafter on 26-7-1978 the Registrar Co-operative Societies passed an order found at Annexure PD by virtue of which he added two more members in the committee. These two more members are (1) Shri Piara Singh and (2) Shri Salig Ram.
2. Now the contention of the petitioner is that the Registrar had no powers to add these two more members because what was extended by the Government as per Annexure PC was the life of the committee which was constituted previously by five members. The contention, therefore, is that it was not legally competent to the Registrar to add two more members to the committee after the extension of its life by the Government.
3. It is Section 35-A which requires to be interpreted in order to appreciate the above raised contention of the petitioner. This section is in the following terms :--
'35-A. Power of Registrar to constitute new committee in certain cases.-
(1) Where in any co-operative society, a committee constituted in accordance with the provisions of this Act, rules and bye-laws does not exist, the Registrar may, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or rules or bye-laws, constitute by notification a committee for such society consisting of such number of members and not exceeding eleven out of whom not less than one-third shall be share-holders of such society, as he may deem fit:
Provided that if the number of the members of the committee so constituted is less than eleven the Registrar may, from time to time, add a member or members to the committee.
(2) A committee constituted under Sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be a committee for all the purposes of this Act, rules and bye-laws and shall continue to function for a period of two years or until such period as a committee for such society is constituted in accordance with the provisions of this Act, rules and bye-laws whichever expires earlier:
Provided that the Government may by notification extend the period of two years so as not to exceed in the aggregate three years.'
4. It is evident from the provisions of this section that Sub-section (1) empowers the Registrar to constitute the committee in such a manner that its total membership does not exceed eleven. Another limitation which is contemplated by Sub-section (1) is that out of the members so appointed not less than one-third shall be share-holders of the society. The proviso which is attached to Sub-section (1) says that if the number of the members of the committee so constituted by the Registrar is less than eleven, the Registrar may from time to time add the number of members to the committee. It is obviously under this proviso that the Registrar by an order, dated 26-7-1978 has added the above named two members to the constitution of the committee.
5. Sub-section (2) of Section 35-A provides that the committee constituted under Sub-section (I) by the Registrar, shall continue to function for a period of two years or such period for which the committee is constituted under rules and bye-laws--whichever is earlier. It is thus obvious that under the main provisions of Sub-section (2), the ad hoc committee appointed by the Registrar under Sub-section (1) cannot function for morethan two years. However, the proviso which is attached to this Sub-section (2) adds that the Government may by notification extend the above said period of two years so as not to exceed the aggregate three years. It is under the powers vested in it by this proviso that the Government has extended the life of the committee up to 9-5-1979 as per Annexure PC. It is, however, pbvious from the provisions contained in Sub-section (2) that the power of the Government is not with regard to the constitution of the committee, but with regard to the extension of its lifetime. The constitution of the committee has a connotation which is quite distinct and independent from the connotation for the term of its life. Power to constitute the committee rests with the Registrar and remains untouched even in cases where the Government has taken action to extend the life of the committee under the proviso attached to Sub-section (2) of Section 35-A. It is under these circumstances that, the Registrar has taken action to add two members to the constitution of the committee. The argument that the Registrar cannot add them after the Government has extended the life of the committee, is not acceptable because it is not for the Government to constitute the committee under Sub-section (1) of Section 35-A. The powers of the Registrar to constitute a committee within the limitations contemplated by Sub-section (1) of Section 35-A remain totally unaffected even if the life of the committee is extended by the Government under the proviso attached to Sub-section (2) of Section 35-A. We, therefore, find that the addition of two members to the committee made by the Registrar as per Annexure PD cannot be challenged by the petitioner as illegal.
6-7. The grouse of the petitioner is that the two members who are added are hostile to him. That fact need not be enquired into by this Court. Because if again a reference is made to Sub-section (1) of Section 35-A, the only limitations which are put on the exercise of the powers by the Registrar to constitute the committee are that the total number of the members of the. committee should not exceed eleven and that out of the members so appointed by the Registrar one-third should be the share-holders of the society. If these two limitations are properly observed the Registrar can appoint any person as 'he may deem fit'. This would, of course, be subject to the provisions of Rule 41 which is with regard to the disqualifications for the membership of the committee and other relevant provisions which would debar a person from being appointed as a member of the committee.
8. So far as the respondent Piara Singh is concerned, his appointment has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that he is a defaulter. The learned Advocate General has, however, drawn our attention to Notification No. 5394/76 dated 27-10-1978 by which the appointment of Shri Piara Singh has been cancelled by the Government.
9. So far as the respondent Salig Ram is concerned, there is nothing in the record to show how he is under the rules disqualified to be the member of the committee. If this respondent is not congenial to the petitioner, it is for the petitioner to make proper representation to the Registrar or to any other competent authority, but we cannot say that he should not have been appointed merely because he is not congenial to the petitioner.
In view of the above discussion we find that there is no substance in this writ petition which is hereby summarily dismissed.