There is no provision of appeal against the order of Dy.Registrar.

1. Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of certiorari or any other writ direction or order calling for records of first respondent in his proceedings in Na Ka 4081/97/D4, dated 30.6.1997 and quash the same and pass such further orders.

2. Election to the Board of Directors of T.P.Spl.56, V.Nachipalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank, Vellakoil, Village,Kangeyam was conducted on 11.9.1996. Out of 20 eligible candidates 7 were to be elected. Petitioner and second respondent secured equal number of votes, i.e., 411 votes at 7th place. Since both of them secured equal number of votes, election officer had to draw a lot under Sub-Rule (16) to Rule 52 of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988. Petitioner succeeded in drawing of lot and was declared as successful candidate.

3. Second respondent challenged the election under Sec.90 of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act before Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Deputy Registrar entertained the said petition and in the presence of petitioner, second respondent and other elected officers further recounting was done. Even at that time it was found that both petitioner as well as second respondent had obtained equal number of votes i.e., 411 votes. In view of the same, election petition was dismissed. An award was passed by Deputy Registrar on 29.10.1996.

4. Reason for filing this writ petition is that petitioner received an order dated 30.6.1997 whereby first respondent has ordered for second recounting of votes in an appeal alleged to have been filed by 2nd respondent under Sec.152 of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. From the order it could be seen that appeal was filed before first respondent after a delay of 144 days and first respondent had condoned the delay even without notice to petitioner. First respondent has further said that second recounting was ordered taking into consideration interest of justice. Above proceedings of first respondent is challenged in this proceedings, as one without jurisdiction.

5. In the various grounds it is said that second appeal before first respondent itself is not maintainable and he cannot be an appellate authority under Sec.152 of the Act. If at all appeal lies, it lies only before Tribunal. It is further said that when there is delay in preferring appeal, even if appeal is maintainable, petitioner is entitled to contest that the delay is not liable to be condoned and even without notice, to petitioner, delay has been excused by first respondent, which is an act without jurisdiction. Apart from the same, it is further said that first respondent exceeded in his jurisdiction in ordering second recounting. It prayed for quashing all the proceedings of first respondent.

6. Learned Government Pleader took notice. All further proceedings pursuant to the order of first respondent were stayed for a period.

7. I heard learned Government Pleader who argued the matter on written instructions. Though second respondent has been served. He has not filed any counter affidavit and the learned counsel for second respondent adopted the arguments of learned Government Pleader.

8. On the basis of written instructions, learned Government Pleader submitted that a dispute was raised by second respondent under Sec.90 of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, before Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, who ordered recounting. On 29.10.1996, recounting was conducted and it is found that there is no change in the number of votes secured by second respondent and petitioner. Against the order passed by Deputy Registrar, second respondent again approached first respondent under Sec.152 of Co-operative Societies Act demanding another recounting, Appeal was received on 23.6.1997. After careful consideration, first respondent came to the conclusion of giving one more chance to prove the case and therefore ordered recounting. Recounting was only in regard to votes secured by second respondent and he has not set aside the election o