This is a petition by five petitioners who are, in addition to being the members of the Co-operative Bank (Ayiroorpara Farmers Bank), elected members of the Board of Directors in pursuance of the election held on February 13,1994. Along with these five petitioners eight others were also elected to constitute what is known as the Board of Directors. They approached this court for a challenge to Ext. P1 which is an order of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvananthapuram (respondent No. 2) acting under S.32 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, proceeding to remove the Board of Directors in the said society and as a consequence appointing part-time administrator, obstensibly for a period of three months, till the newly elected committee is in a position to take charge. There is no dispute that the joint Registrar passed the impugned order (Ext. P1) on February 11, 1994 (Saturday) appointing the administrator in pursuance thereof almost only for a day (February 12,1994 - Sunday) because the factual matrix shows mat the newly elected committee was ready to assume charge in pursuance of the order. In regard to this certain averments are placed on record which would be considered at the appropriate stage.

2. Since the impugned order (Ext. P1) is passed under the provisions of S.32 of the Act, it would be really necessary and relevant in the first instance to refer to the concerned statutory provisions for the purpose of setting at rest finally legal and statutory limits of the authority of the Joint Registrar under the said provision. These limits would be more convenient to set down to facilitate further examination of the activities in the context as are sought to be placed through the material on record.

3. Section 32 empowers the Registrar to proceed with the supersession of the committee of a Co-operative Society. The committee in this context would be the Board of Directors in function 'in accordance with the provisions of the Act, Rules and the concerned bye-laws. This supersession requires the existence of the satisfaction of the Registrar. The satisfaction is referable to certain situations. If the committee makes persi stent defaults or if the committee is negligent in the performance of the duties, then in regard thereto the Registrar requires satisfaction in the context. This persistency in defaults or negligence in the performance relates to the duties under the Act or the Rules or Bye-laws. It also refers to the commission of the acts of the committee, in regard to which satisfaction is required that the concerned acts are prejudicial to the interests of the society. In addition, if the committee wilfully disobeys or wilfully fails to comply with any lawful order or direction, on satisfaction the Registrar can supersede the concerned committee. However, it is required that this wilful disobedience or compliance of a similar character of orders or directions need be referable only to those issues under the Act or the Rules.

4. Reading the requirements specified above, correct and proper jurisdiction of the Registrar would depend on the satisfaction. The satisfaction is relatable to a situation of persistency in the matter of defaults or negligence in regard to the performance of duties by the concerned committee. Additionally it is also a requirement that these defaults or duties should be referable to the Act or the Rules or the Bye-laws. Additionally also acts have to be prejudcial to the interests of the society showing wilful disobedience or failure of a similar character in the matter of lawful orders or directions issued by the Registrar, additionally requiring the issuance of these orders and directions also to be falling in some of the provisions of the Act or the Rules. It is only on the satisfaction of these requirements, the Registrar may proceed to think of giving an opportunity to the concerned members of the committee by an order in writing.

5. In the process of apprecia