( 1 ) THIS is a reference made to this Bench by one of us for answering the question : "whether the provisions of Rule 66 (6) (iv), M. P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1962, operate as a bar to an appeal under Section 77 and revision under Section 80 M. P. Cooperative Societies Act?" The learned single Judge while making the reference has referred to two decisions of this Court, both Division Bench decisions, in which the question has been considered. In one of them, i. e. the decision in Misc. Petn. No. 131 of l971 (Sirajratan v. The Joint Registrar. Co-operative Societies. M. P. , decided on 2-21972 a Division Bench held that Rule 66 (6) (iv) will not come in the way of revisional jurisdiction under Section 80. M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, as it was held in that judgment that the revisional powers under Section 80 have been conferred under the Act itself and the rules framed under the Act cannot override (he provisions of the Act. The other Division Bench decision to which reference has been made by the learned single Judge in the reference order is the judgment in Mannulal v. Krishi Sahakari Sakh (Sakhar?) Samiti Narola Heerapur 1975 RN 131. In this judgment it has been held :

" That being so, the matter was government (governed?) by Rule 60 (6) (i ). Since no application was made within thirty days from the date of sale, the Recovery Officer rightly made the order confirming the sale. An order made under Sub-rule (6) for confirmation of sale becomes final and is not liable to be questioned in any suit or other legal proceedings by reason of Clause (iv) thereof. The finality of the order of confirmation could not be challenged by way of appeal under Section 77 (1mb) or revision under Section 80. Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act. 1960. "

But in this judgment it has not been considered as to whether rules framed under the Act could override the provisions of the Act itself. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner attempted to contend that Section 77 of the Act provides for appeal but this Section 77 starts with the phrase "save where it has been otherwise provided" which may include the provisions contained in the rules and on this ground it was contended that when in the rule, i. e. Rule 66 (6) (iv), it is provided that the order could not be challenged in any legal proceedings it will affect the jurisdiction under Section 77 also, whereas learned counsel appearing for the non-applicants contended that the rules have been framed under Section 95 and. Therefore, the rules could not have amended or modified the Act itself.

( 2 ) SECTION 77, it is not disputed, provides for an appeal. It reads :

"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, 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 he 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 subsection the time requisite for obtaining a copy of t