( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Cooperative Tribunal dismissing the appeal of the petitioner/the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. It has been contended by Mr. Munjal that in terms of Rule 89 of the Delhi Cooperative societies Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "rule") the award is without jurisdiction. Rule 89 of the Rules is to the following effect:

"89. Award or Decision 1. The arbitrator shall make a memorandum of the statements of the parties who attended and if such witnesses are examined and upon the evidence so recorded and after consideration of any documentary evidence produced by either party shall make an award in accordance with justice, equity and good conscience, he shall record his award signed and dated within a period of three months and shall communicate it to the party concerned. In case the arbitrator is unable to decide the case and make the award within three months he shall seek extension of the period in writing from the Registrar by making an application to him. It has been contended by Mr. Munjal on the basis of the aforesaid rule that the arbitrator is to make the award within a period of three months and he was obliged to seek extension of time if the arbitrator could not make the award within a period of three months and that extension of time was to be sought from the Registrar in writing by making an application to him. In support of the submission learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon AIR 1986 SC 2160, A. K. Roy and another v. State of Punjab and others.

( 2 ) THE Second contention urged by Mr. Munjal before me is with regard to the application of directive dated 28/05/1996 issued by the Registrar Co-operative societies to the societies. He has contended that the directive issued by the Registrar dated 28/05/1996 was prospective in nature and was not retrospective. What has been argued is that the resignation of the respondent No. 1 was accepted by the managing Committee on 5/05/1996 Whereas the directive came from the Registrar on 28/05/1996. Lastly it has been contended before me that the Registrar of Co- operative Society in terms of Rule 77 could not have issued such a directive as directives could only be issued with regard to the conduct of business of the co-operative society in terms of Rule 77 of the Rules. The society was a group housing society and was not doing any business. In support of his submission he has relied upon ILR (1977) I Delhi, R. P. Dube v. Lt. Governor and others and 1969 (2) SCC 43, The Co-operative central Bank Ltd. and others v. The Additional Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh and others.

( 3 ) ON the other hand Mr. V. K. shall appearing for the Registrar Co-operative societies has contended that in the rule making power pursuant to which the Registrar co-operative Society has issued directives dated 28/05/1996 the Registrar was empowered to do so. He has further contended that even in the said directive it has been clearly postulated that these rates of interest which was to be charged by the society from the defaulting members or interest which was to be paid to those members who have resigned from membership should be the maximum rate of interest. He has contended that in the directive under reference, however, it was made clear that this was subject to the approval of the general body of the society. He has further contended that as the total amount which the respondent was entitled to had not been paid by the time directive came into operation, therefore, the directive of the Registrar would be applicable to the case of the respondent No. 1. Lastly rebutting the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. shall has contended that as the parties were participating in the adjudication proceedings before the arbitrator, therefore, the argument of the petitioner that Rule 89 would circumvent the arbitrator to proceed in the absence of a written extension granted by the Registrar is not available to