S. Sankarasubban, J.

This Original Petition raises a very interesting issue. Petitioner in the Original Petition Mathewkunju was a member of the Managing Committee of Lemon Grass Oil & General Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd. He is also the delegate to the Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. as the Primary Society is affiliated to the Federation. The term of office of the elected committee of the Federation was over on 22.3.1999. Before the expiry of the term, the Managing Committee of the Society was superseded by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies by order dated 27.1.1999. This was challenged before this Court and the order of super session was stayed. But since the election could not be held before the expiry of the term, an administrator was appointed for the management of the Federation by invoking S.33(1) of the Kerala State Co-operative Societies Act.

2. Petitioner further submits that respondents 4 to 6 are the employees of the Federation. The fourth respondent was the Branch Manager of the Branch at Delhi. There were allegations of misappropriation against him. An enquiry was conducted. He was placed under suspension. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. Taking into consideration the gravity of the offence, the fourth respondent was allowed to retire voluntarily from service. Similar disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the 5th and 6th respondents. The fifth respondent was dismissed and the sixth respondent was allowed to retire voluntarily. Respondents 4 to 6 filed appeals under R.198(4) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules before the Managing Committee. The same was pending consideration before the Committee when the Committee was in force. On 25.1.1999, the appeals filed by respondents 4 to 6 were considered by the Board and decided to give personal hearing. However, since the Committee was superseded, the same could not be given.

3. As already stated, the administration is now vested in the administrator, under S.33(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. According to the petitioner, the administrator has no authority to take a policy decision including appointment, dismissal or reinstatement. His contention is that the administrator cannot hear the appeals filed by respondents 4 to 6. His contention is that the administrator is fully under the control of the third respondent- Managing Director. The administrator appointed under S.33(1) or under S.32 is only a stop gap arrangement. He has no power or authority to hear such appeals and take decisions. The said action of the administrator cannot be treated as functions of day-to-day administration. Hence the prayers in the Original Petition are for a direction restraining the administrator from hearing the appeals filed by respondents 4 to 6, under R.198(4) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules and for other reliefs.

4. Respondents 4 and 5 filed appeals while the sixth respondent filed C.M.P. No. 31186 of 1999 to vacate the interim order in C.M.P. No. 15917/99. An interim order was passed in the above CMP as follows:

"Notice and interim direction not to give effect to any order passed by the Administrator without obtaining permission of this Court".

In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, they have taken the contention that the administrator is competent to hear the appeals and that the petitioner has no locus standi. A memo was filed by the Government Pleader, which shows that orders have been passed on the appeal filed by the sixth respondent. Counsel for the petitioner Shri. D. Somasundaram contended that the administrator appointed under S.33(1) or under S.32 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act is appointed only to discharge the routine functions. He cannot exercise the powers and functions of the Managing Committee. Counsel further contended that this Court in the Full Bench decision reported in Hassan v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, 1998 (2) KLT 746, held tha