Heard both sides. In the first writ petition, the petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (for short 1984 Act). The challenge in this writ petition is to the enquiry ordered under Section 69 of the 1984 Act regarding the working and the financial condition of the petitioner society. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tiruchirappalli Region was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. Subsequently, by a further order dated 06. 2002, the Co-operative Sub-Registrar was authorised to conduct an enquiry. Once again the Co-operative Sub-Registrar informed the petitioner society to produce the books of accounts in terms of his summons dated 16. 2002. It is these proceedings, which are under challenge in the first writ petition.

2. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted an interim stay on condition that the petitioner produces the books of accounts in terms of the notice dated 19. 2002. A detailed counter affidavit dated nil has been filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 4.

3. In the second writ petition, viz., W.P.No.45520 of 2002, the writ petition is filed by the two Directors of the Southern Railway Employees Co-operative and Credit Society Limited seeking for a direction to the Registrar, Central Co-operative Credit Society, New Delhi and the third respondent CBI, New Delhi to conduct an inquiry into the functioning of the society on the basis of a complaint dated 02. 2002 preferred by them. That writ petition was admitted on 21. 2003. It was also directed to be posted along with the earlier writ petition.

4. According to the Co-operative Society, after coming into force of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (Central Act 39 of 2002) (for short 2002 Act), the power of the Registrar under Section 69 of the 1984 Act to initiate action and ordering an enquiry is inconsistent with the provisions of the 2002 Act and such power has been virtually taken away by the 2002 Act. It was argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the Co-operative Society that the 2002 Act, which received the assent of the President on 07. 2002 by virtue of Section 126(4) saves such appointments, orders and notification issued under the repealed Act, which are not inconsistent with the provisions of the 2002 Act. Under the 2002 Act, Section 78 which deals with enquiry referable to Section 69 of the 1984 Act had done away with the powers of the Central Registrar to order an enquiry on his own motion. Under the present Act, only if one-third of the members of the Board of Directors or one-fifth of the total members of the society makes a request, an enquiry can be ordered.

5. Since the Central Registrar had stayed the proceedings of the second and third respondents, directing an enquiry will no longer be valid in terms of the 1984 Act. It is no doubt true that under Section 69 of the 1984 Act, the Central Registrar had a power to order a suo motu enquiry apart from similar power provided under Section 78 of the 2002 Act. Though such a power had been taken away, it does not help the case of the petitioners. Under Section 126, while the 1984 Act is repealed, it saves certain class of proceedings. In the present case, a reference to Section 126(4) is inappropriate and reference has to be made only to Section 126 (6) of the Act, which reads as follows:-

126(6). Save as otherwise provided in this Act, any legal proceeding pending in any Court or before the Central Registrar or any other authority at the commencement of this Act shall be continued to be in that Court or before the Central Registrar or that authority as if this Act had not been passed."

(Emphasis Added)

6. According to Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, learned Senior Counsel, the proceeding initiated against the petitioner society cannot be said to be a legal proceeding". The said term can only mean proceedings such as appeal, revision, review etc. The learned Senior Counsel in this context referred to Section 22(1) o