( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

( 2 ) THE Vijayapur Co-operative Marketing Society is a registered society under the co-operative Societies Act, 1960, (hereinafter called 'the Act' ). The members of equivalent Citation: the society are classified into the following groups: (1) The Co-operative Societies; (2) Agriculturists in the individual capacity. (3) Traders and others; (4) The Government. Election to the office of the members of Managing committee of the society for the period from 1968 to 1971 was held in the month of February 1968. The petitioner is a primary member of the Arrod Co-operative Society and is a representative of the said society. He filed nomination paper which was rejected by the Returning Officer. Nomination papers of four others were also rejected. Nominations of other six were accepted and they were declared elected to the Managing Committee.

( 3 ) THE petitioner then filed an application under Section 64 of the Act challenging the rejection of his nomination paper and the acceptance of the nomination papers of respondents 2 to 7. He also contended that the notice which had been issued to the Assistant Registrar under Section 49 (2) was bad inasmuch as it was served on the Assistant Registrar on February 3, 1968, for the general meeting to be held on february 17, 1968, in which the election was to be held. The notice ought to have been of "at least fourteen clear days before the date of the meeting. "

( 4 ) THE Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Gwalior Division, as nominee of the Registrar within the meaning of Section 66 of the Act, decided the dispute. By his order dated December 3, 1968. he rejected the petitioner's petition and declared the election valid. Aggrieved by that decision the petitioner filed this writ petition.

( 5 ) SHRI Patanker, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged three grounds before us. (1) The notice of the meeting which was given to the Assistant Registrar under section 49 (2) of the Act was not valid so that the election was null and void. (2)His nomination paper was rejected on a technical ground, that the name of the society, which he represented, had not been entered in the nomination paper, (3)The nomination of Narendra Kramar (respondent No. 3) was wrongly accepted inasmuch as the society which he represented was indebted so that it was not eligible to contest the election.

( 6 ) SHRI P. L. Dube, learned Government Advocate, raised a preliminary objection that the order of the Deputy Registrar was appealable under Section 77 but the petitioner did not prefer any appeal.

( 7 ) SECTION 77 of the Act reads thus: "77. Appeals:-- (1) Save where it has been otherwise provided, an appeal shall lie from every original order under this Act or the rules thereunder- (a) if such order is passed by any officer subordinate to the registrar, other than Additional Registrar, or Joint Registrar, equivalent Citation: whether or not the officer passing the order is invested with the powers of the Registrar to the Registrar. (b) If such order is passed by the Registrar, Additional Registrar or Joint Registrar to the State Government. (2) A second appeal shall lie against any order passed in first appeal by the Registrar, Additional Registrar or Joint Registrar to the State government on any of the following grounds and no other, namely:-- (i) that the order is contrary to law; or (ii) that the order has failed to determine some material issue of law; or (iii) that there has been a substantial error or defect in the procedure as prescribed by this Act which may have produced error or defect in the decision of the case upon merits. (3) Every appeal shall be presented in the prescribed manner to the appellate authority concerned within 30 days of the date on which the order appealed against was communicated to the party affected by the order: provided that in computing the period of limitation under this sub-section the time requisite fo