The main legal point established in the judgment is that an order substantially affecting the substantial rights and liabilities of the parties can be challenged in appeal, and the procedural requirements for passing the order under S.33 of the Act must be satisfied.

Thulasidas, J.

The 2nd respondent in O.P.No.9596 of 1992 is the appellant and in this appeal, he has challenged the order passed on CM.P.No.16686 of 1992 dated 26-8-1992.

2. RAIDCO (Regional Agro-Industrial Development Co-operative Ltd.) is a society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. under byelaw No.20 marked as Ext.P2 in the O.P. the management of the society is vested in a Board of Directors consisting of 11 members of whom nine are elected directors and two ex-officio directors. Eight among them are to be elected from among the delegates of the affiliated societies (A class members) and one director from among the individual members (B class members). The ex-officio directors are the Project Officer, Small Farmers Development Agency, Cannanore, and the President, Cannanore District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Cannanore. The last election to the Board of Directors was held on 12-8-1990. The term of the Board of Directors was held on 12-8-1990. The term of the Board of Directors was three years. One of the directors namely K.V. Moosankutty, died on 27-12-1991 and the resultant vacancy had not been filled up.

3. The appellant was stated to have received a report from the 3rd respondent in the O.P., the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies Cannanore, on 22-7-1992 to the effect that five of the elected directors had ceased to be members of the Board under R.46(f) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (for short, the 'Rules'), that one Shri M.C. Jose, another elected member, had sent him his resignation, that following the appointment of an Administrator to run the District Co-operative Central Bank, its President had ceased to be an ex-officio director of the Board, and therefore, its membership had been reduced to three which could not constitute the quorum of six as provided in S.28(5) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, (for short, the 'Act'). The management of RAIDCO could not therefore be lawfully, and effectively conducted. In the above circumstances, he found it necessary to invoke his jurisdiction under S.33 of the Act and passed Ext.P1 by which he appointed the 3rd respondent as part-time Administrator for a period of six months or till an elected Board took charge whichever was earlier. This was done, according to him, "to remove the administrative stalemate in the society". That order is under challenge in the O.P. on several grounds whose tenability and correctness do not fall for consideration now in this appeal.

4. Along with the O.P., C.M.P.No.16686 of 1992 was filed for stay of operation of Ext.P1. The learned judge heard counsel and the Government Pleader who submitted that the Administrator had already taken charge which submission was disputed by counsel for the petitioner. By order dated 28-7-1992, interim stay was granted "on condition that the order will take effect only if the administrator has not taken charge by now".

5. On behalf of the 1st respondent, (appellant herein), 3rd respondent in the O.P. filed counter-affidavit in the above C.M.P. denying the allegations. The 4th respondent who was not impleaded in the C.M.P. also filed a counter-affidavit. The matter was heard and the impugned order was passed resting mainly upon S.34 of the Act. According to the learned judge, from the facts and circumstances, "the only conclusion possible is that the charge of the office of the society including records and the properties had not been handed over to the administrator and the same continued with the managing committee. The Administrator is not competent to assume charge of the office without an order from the Magistrate obtained under S.34(1) of the Act. The so-called assumption of charge is illegal and inoperative" and directed that "the stay order will be in operation till the disposal of the Original Petition".

6. Along with the appeal, the appellant filed C.M.P.No.6762 of 1992 for stay of operation of the impugned order. This court gave an interim direction that