(Per : Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawar, J.)

For the reasons stated, Delay Condonation Application No. 5913 of 2008 is allowed. The delay in filing the review application is condoned. The review application shall be treated to be filed in time.

2. The Review Petitioner has filed the Civil Misc. Review No. 1052/2008 for reviewing the judgment dated 30.07.2008 passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 343 of 2008 (M/B), 344 of 2008 (M/B) and 353 of 2008 (M/B)* by which it has been held by this Court that the Administrator of the Management Committee has no right to get the areas of the society or the village to re-determine for the purpose of election; the Administrator appointed by the Registrar cannot enroll new members for the election; he cannot change the composition of the society; and he cannot make delimitation of the election areas by adjusting the revenue villages from one society to another society.

3. Mr. Arvind Vashist, Advocate appearing for the review petitioner contended that the above findings recorded by this Court in para 5 and 6 of the judgment under review are based on the statement made by the Chief Standing Counsel and the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jt. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kerala Vs. T.A. Kuttappan & others 2000 (6) SCC 127. Learned counsel further contended that Section 29(1) of the Uttaranchal Coopertaive Societies Act provides that the management of every co-operative society shall vest in Committee of Management constituted in accordance with this Act, the rules and the bye-laws. Sub-section (6) of Section 29 provides that the Administrator or the Committee appointed under sub-section (5) shall, subject to any directions which the Registrar may from time to time give, have the power to perform all or any of the functions of the Committee of Management or of any officer of the society and shall be deemed for all purposes under this Act, the rules and the bye-laws of the society to be the Committee Management and the Chairman of such Committee shall exercise the powers and perform the functions of the Chairman of the Committee of management. It was further contended that perusal of the statutory fiction reveals that the Administrator has been conferred all the powers of the Management committee and it cannot be said that the Administrator has no power to induct new members; Section 35 of the Cooperative Societies Act provides for the supersession or suspension of the Committee of Management and sub-section (5) of Section 35 provides that the Committee or Administrators appointed under sub-section (3) and (4) shall, subject to any directions which the Registrar may from time to time give, have the power to exercise all or any of the functions of the Committee of Management or of any officer of the society and shall be deemed for all purposes under this Act. The finding was based upon the judgment of T.A. Kuttappan (supra) in which the power of Administrator of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act has been defined. The provisions of Kerala Cooperative Societies Act are substantially different from the provisions of the Uttarakhand Cooperative Societies Act, as such, the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court is not applicable in Uttarakhand. Thus, the judgment dated 30.07.2008, which is under review, suffers from error apparent on the face of record.

4. Mr. Alok Singh, Senior Advocate appearing for the Committee of Management, Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti ltd. (writ petitioners) contended that the Committee of Management constituted under the Act can exercise all powers conferred under the Act. Rules and Bye-laws, whereas the Administrator appointed by the Registrar can only exercise those powers which are assigned to him under the directions of the Registrar and the Administrator has no power to exercise all powers and functions of the elected Committee of Management; sub-section (1) of Section 29 of the Uttaranchal Cooperative Society Act provides that the Manag