S.M.N. Raina, J.

1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

2. The petitioner is a member of the Shilpakar Majdoor Sangh, Shivpuri, a society registered under the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The Committee of the Society was superseded on 11-9-65 under section 53 of the Act and Shri Brij Nandan Lal Kulshreshtha was appointed as Officer-in-charge to manage the affairs of the Society. The supersession was initially for a period of two years but it was extended from time to time. The maximum period of three years prescribed under subsection (3) of section 53 of the Act expired on 10-9-68. The period has, however, been further extended for a period of two years by the Registrar with the sanction of the State Government accorded under section 91 of the Act. At the general meeting of the Society held on 30-3-69 the Bye-laws regarding qualifications of the members of the Society was amended as under :-

In pursuance of this amendment the Officer-in-charge issued a notice to the petitioner intimating him that he was no longer qualified to be a member of the Society (vide Annexure B to the petition). Being aggrieved thereby the petitioner has come up before this Court and has challenged the action of the Officer-in-charge on various grounds which we shall presently consider.

3. The first contention of Shri H. G. Mishra, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the period of supersession of the Committee of the Society could not be extended beyond the period of three years as required by subsection (3) of section 53 of the Act in the manner it has been done. In this connection it would be pertinent to refer section 91 of the Act which empowers the State Government to direct that the provisions of the Act shall apply to a Society with such modifications as may be specified in the order. The relevant order of the State Government in this connection is Annexure B to the Return. By the order dated 16-9-68 the State Government with reference to its powers under section 91 of the Act accorded sanction for extension of the period of supersession of the Committee of the Society for a further period of two years i. e., upto 10-9-70.

4. Under section 91 the State Government is competent to exempt any society from any of the provisions of the Act or may direct that such provisions shall apply to such society with such modifications as may be specified in the order. Although the order dated 16-9-68 (Annexure B to the Return) is not happily worded but, in our view in substance it means that the Government in exercise of its powers under section 91 of the Act relaxed the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 53 of the Act to the extent specified in the order. This was clearly within the powers of the State Government and as such we are of the view that the extension of the period is perfectly lawful.

5. The next point that has been urged before us is that the notice which purports to terminate the membership of the petitioner (vide Annexure B to the petition) is invalid for two reasons. In the first place, the Officer-in-charge was not competent to issue such a notice. Secondly, it amounts virtually to expelling the petitioner without giving him an opportunity to show cause against the aforesaid action. We have carefully examined the provisions of the Act, the Rules and Bye laws. We do not find any provision in the Act or the Rules which may enable a Society to expel or to terminate the membership of an existing member by altering the qualifications for membership of the Society. Section 19 of the Act lays down as to who can be admitted as a member of the Society, and Rule 15 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1962, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') lays down disqualifications for membership. It is obvious and it has not been disputed that the petitioner is duly qualified under section 19 and has not incurred any disqualification as specified in Rule 15 of the Ru