The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the appellate and revisional powers under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, specifically regarding the decision of the Assistant Registrar and the competence of the State Government to entertain revision petitions.

1. This appeal is by the 5th respondent in O. P. No. 6011 of 1986 challenging the judgment of the learned single judge in the O. P. In regard to certain problems regarding conditions of service such as seniority etc., the dispute between the appellant, the 1st respondent and the 5th respondent, Naduvil Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., was referred under S.69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 to the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Before the Assistant Registrar, the question was raised as to whether the dispute raised before him is dispute as defined in clause (i) of S.2 of the Act. The Assistant Registrar to whom the dispute was referred, rendered a decision to the effect that the dispute referred to him is dispute as defined in clause (i) of S.2 of the Act. He also simultaneously rendered his decision on the merits against the appellant. It appears that the question as to whether the dispute referred falls under clause (i) of S.2 was not raised for decision as a preliminary issue and therefore came up for decision along with all other issues on merits.

2. The appellant then challenged the decision of the Assistant Registrar, that the dispute referred is dispute as defined in clause (i) of S.2, by way of revision to the State Government under S.87 of the Act. He also prayed for stay of the operation of the decision of the Assistant Registrar. The State Government who entertained the revision petition of the appellant, under S.87 of the Act, made an interim ex parte order in favour of the appellant, on 17-7-1986. This is Ext. P3. Instead of appealing before the State Government and requesting it to vacate the interim order, the 1st respondent came to this Court in O. P. No. 6011 of 1986, praying for the issue of a writ in the nature of prohibition against the State Government from entertaining the revision petition of the appellant, also praying for quashing of the interim order of stay granted by the State Government. The learned single judge by judgment dated 19th August, 1986, allowed the Original Petition, quashed Ext. P3 and declared that the Government had no competence either to entertain the revision petition or to issue the impugned order Ext. P3. It is the said order that is challenged in this appeal.

3. The first contention of Shri. M. C. Sen, learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the learned single judge could not have allowed the O. P. of the 1st respondent at the stage of admission without notice to the appellant. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent did not and could not dispute the fact that the O.P. came to be allowed without notice to the respondents at the stage of admission. It is unfortunate that it was not noticed that notice was not issued to the respondents and that therefore the O. P. could not have been taken up for final hearing and disposed of against the interest of the contesting respondents behind their back. Hence, it is obvious that on this short ground the judgment of the learned single judge cannot be sustained.

4. We think, instead of remitting it back to the learned single judge, it is proper that we should hear and dispose of the matter in order to avoid avoidable delay in this case.

5. The learned single judge has observed that the State Government was not competent to entertain the revision petition on the ground that an appeal is competent under S.82 of the Act. But, it has to be painted out that so far as the decision of the Registrar, in this case, that of the Assistant Registrar, under S.69 (4) of the Act in regard to the question as to whether the dispute referred is one falling under Clause (i) of S.2 of the Act or not, has been declared as final by sub-section (4) of S.69. This Court has held in Sankara Wariyar v. N. M. Dist. C S. M. S. Ltd. (1986 KLT 812) that an appeal against the decision of an Assistant Registrar under section 9(4) is not appealable under S.82 of the Act.

6. S.82 of the Act enumerates the orders against whic