( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by a plaintiff of a suit under sec. 96 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act and presently the opponent before the Board of Nominees. The suit is filed for a declaration that he is a duly elected Director of the respondent No. 1 Co-operative Society as per the elections held in August 1984 and he cannot be restrained from acting as such. The Society on the other hand was contending that he was removed from his office by the Registrar under sec. 76 B (1) of the Act. And he was disqualified on the day of the election namely August 1984 the Registrars Order being dated 27/01/1984 his election itself was had and therefore he could not bank on his alleged elect of August 1984 The Nominee of the Registrar refused to grant the interim injunction and his order came to be confirmed by the Co-operative Tribunal in the revision application filed against that order and that has given rise to the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) I am not oblivious of this Courts limited jurisdiction while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India nor oblivious of the dis- cretionary character of this High Courts writ jurisdiction. However when it appears that on gross misconception of facts and law the authorities refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them by law if the decisions impugned before this High Court can be said to be without jurisdiction they are liable to be in- terfered with.

( 3 ) IN order to understand the controversy a few facts are require d to be noted carefully. The petitioner at the relevant time of the order i. e. 1981 1982 1983 and 1984 was holding the posts of an elected Director on the Board of Direc- tors of this respondent No. 1 Co-operative Society. As the order of the Tribunal itself shows vide paragraph 3 his post was to fall vacant on his retirement in Aug. 1984. As per bye-laws 1 members of the Board of Directors were to retire on rotation and the petitioner was one of term. So his term as a Director was limited to the period upto August 1984 Had he not been removed he also would have ceased to be a Director. Now the Registrar in exercise of his power under sec. 76-B (1) of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act removed him from the office of the Director. He could not have been removed beyond the period of his tenure the. beyond August 1984 But the Registrar perhaps oblivious of the limitations of his power purported to pass an order removing him for one year Being aggrieved by the said decision the petitioner had filed a revision appli- cation before the State level Additional Register. The Additional Registrar was competent to reject the revision applications but he had no jurisdiction to fur- ther say that the petitioner was disqualified also by necessary presumption. But he purported to say that to take this concurrent amuse of the Co-operative Tri- bunal as unwarranted and without authority of law and therefor non-est. The petitioner came to be namely elected in August 1984 As stated above he also laboured under the impression that he had no right to work as a Director and so he waited till March 1985 when he approached the respondent No. 1 Society to permit him to function as a Director. He having been so restrained filed a suit before the Board of Nominee and applied for an interim injunction. The injunction having not been granted by the Nominee as well as by the Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal as per their respective orders at annexures-H and J. the present petition has come to be filed.

( 4 ) EVEN a bare look at the text of section 76-B (1) (2) makes it clear that under that section 76-B the Registrar has got two-fold powers. Under sub-sec. (1) he has got power to remove a Director. But that power is obviously limited their be remainder of the terms of his. This is very clear from the later part of Sub-sec. (1) After removal of an officer the Registrar