G.L. Oza, J.

1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner against an order passed by the respondent number 1 on 8th September 1970.

2. The petitioner is a co operative society functioning under the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the Act) and is registered under that Act as a Co-operative Bank. According to the petitioner, under section 49(b) of the Act, the society is to elect its Board of Directors in accordance with the procedure laid down in rule 41 of the rules framed under the Act. These elections are held under the supervision of Returning Officer appointed under rule 41 (26). In the present case, the Collector was appointed as a returning officer who delegated his powers to a Deputy Collector. It is alleged that under the provisions contained in section 49, the general body of the society also elects delegates for representing the petitioner-Bank in other societies. In order, therefore, to elect its four delegates to represent the petitioner-Bank at the M. P. State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Bhopal, M. P. State Coperative Union, Jabalpur, Premier Co-operative Bank Ltd Indore and the district Cooperative Union Indore a meeting of the general body was held on 23rd August. 1970, where four delegates as mentioned below were elected:

1. Shri Shivshankar Patel to represent in M.P. State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Bhopal.

2. Babusingh Mandtoi to represent in M.P. State Co-operative Union, Jabalpur.

3. Govind Onkar to represent in Premier Co-operative Bank Ltd., Indore.

4. VijayasenWagh to represent in District Co-operative Bank Union.

After the said-election, information about the election of these delegates was sent to the respective societies on 26th August 1970. On 11th September 1970, according to the petitioner, it received a stay order dated the 8th September 1970 from the respondent No. 1 Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, directing that the operation of the election of the said delegates be stayed and further restraining them from representing the petitioner Bank in various societies. The respondent No. 1 passed this order on a dispute filed before him by the respondent No. 2 under section 64 of the Act. The petitioner contended that the dispute filed by respondent No. 2 about the election of the delegates would not fall within the ambit of 'dispute' as contemplated under section, 64 and consequently the respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute and pass an order of this kind. It was also contended in the petition that the stay order was passed ex parte without giving any opportunity to the petitioner.

3. In his return, the respondent No. 1 has contended that the dispute raised by the respondent No. 2 about the election of delegates, falls within the ambit of 'dispute' under section 64 of the Act and, therefore, confers jurisdiction or the respondent No. 1 to entertain it. It is also contended that under section 67 of the Act the respondent is competent to pass interlocutory orders even by way of injunction. It was also contended in the return, filed on 2nd November 1970, that after hearing the parties the respondent No. 1 has confirmed the order of temporary injunction, passed on 8th September 1970, by pasting an order on 2nd November 1970 itself.

4. Shri A.M. Mathur, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the dispute filed by the respondent No. 2 about the election of delegates to represent the petitioner in various societies could only be said to fall within the ambit of clause (v) of section 64(2) of the Act. He contended that clause (v) pertained to 'election of any officer of the society'. The word 'officer' has been defined in section 2(u) of the Act, and, according to the Learned Counsel, in view of that definition it was clear that the delegates so elected to represent the petitioner Bank in various societies could not be said to be 'officer, and consequently the dispute filed by the respondent No. 2 could not be said to be a dispute falling wi