PRATAP KUMAR RAY,J.

(1) Challenging the interim order dated 14th February, 2008 passed in the writ application W. P 334 (w) of 2008, this appeal has been preferred by one Sri Ranjit Bose, since deceased, who was respondent no.4 in the writ application. The interim order challenged under the said appeal registered as AST 91 of 2008 read such: " The petitioners are questioning the order of one S.D Indoria, Chief Director (Co-op) in the office of the Central Registrar of Co-operative Societies, dated December 31, 2007 directing the Chairman of the first petitioner not to appoint any employee in the cooperative society during the progress of the election process. The first petitioner is a multi-state co-operative society governed by the provisions of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. Since election of the society was not held for a long time for constituting the board of directors, an order was made by this court directing the central registrar to take necessary steps for holding the election. There is no dispute that the process initiated by the central registrar is in progress. When the election process was in progress, the society decided to appoint certain persons on temporary basis. Feeling aggrieved, the fourth respondent filed an application intending to initiate arbitration proceedings. He also applied for interim relief. When his applications were pending, the chief director issued the impugned order. The question is whether the chief director was competent to make the order. While Mr. Bandyopadhyay, senior counsel for the petitioners, argued from day one that the order was not made by the authority as an arbitrator appointed to adjudicate the dispute raised by the fourth respondent, Mr. De, senior counsel for the fourth respondent, contended that the authority made the order only in the capacity of an arbitrator, and hence the petitioners were not entitled to approach the writ court. His contention was that their remedy, if any, was under s.37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. For ascertaining whether the order was actually made by the authority as an arbitrator, Ms. Bhattacharyya, counsel for the authorities, was directed to produce the records in original. She has submitted today that she is not in a position to produce the records, but she has received written instructions from the authorities clearly stating that the authority issuing the impugned order did not issue it in the capacity of an arbitrator appointed in any dispute case, but in the capacity of an official in the office of the central registrar. On these facts, the question has arisen whether the authority was at all competent to make the order. While Mr. Bandyopadhyay has said that the authority had no power to make such an order as he made, Mr. De has submitted that in view of the provisions in s.122 of the 2002 Act the authority was quite competent to issue the order. He has said that during progress of the election process there was absolutely no justification for the members of the erstwhile board, a defunct one, to go on making appointment, and thus creating an unbearable liability of the society. He has said that at the meeting concerned no item on the agenda was there regarding recruitment of any employee to be appointed in the society. His contention is that documents were fabricated and apparent fraud was committed by the persons concerned. On these facts he argues that the authority was competent to give directions in his administrative capacity. After going through the provisions in s.122, I am unable to accept Mr. Des contention. Section 122 empowered the central government to give certain directions to specified multi-state co-operative societies in public interest. The order in question was not issued by the central government. The authority acted completely without jurisdiction. He had no power to give the directions which he gave regarding appointment made by the society. The matter was agitated by th