Dipak Misra, J.

By this writ petition, the petitioners, namely, Balaghat Zila Sahkari Karamchari Sangh, Balaghat, and the Branch Manager have prayed for following reliefs:

The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records pertaining to issue of order dated 5-10-2002 as contained in Annexure P/8, and be further pleased to examine the same land to declare the said order as ultra vires to the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and be further pleased to quash the impugned order.

The Hon'ble Court may kindly be further pleased to issue a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from directing the retirement of employees and officers of the District Co-operative Bank Balaghat on attaining the age of 58 years. A writ in the appropriate nature may kindly be issued commanding the respondents to permit the said employees to continue in the employment till they attain the age of 60 years.

Any other reliefs which this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the circumstances of the case, may also be granted to the petitioners, together with the cost of this writ petition.

We need not advert to the facts in detail except stating that by order dated 28-7-1998, Registrar Co-operative Societies, Madhya Pradesh (in short 'the Registrar') enhanced the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years, which was purported to be an amendment of Rule 72(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Employees Service Rules, 1982. Thereafter by order dated 5-10-2002 the same authority reduced the age of retirement from 60 years to 58 years. The validity and propriety of the aforesaid circular has been challenged on many a ground, namely, that uncanalized power has been conferred on the Registrar; that there was no necessity to introduce the concept of parity when only 11 banks had requested for reduction of age; that the said circular creates discrimination and has come into existence without considering the material data; and that the said circular is beyond the scope of powers conferred on the Registrar, and that the grounds which find mention are relatable to financial condition of the banks as well as to reduce the establishment cost of the banks and, therefore, a general circular of this nature could not have been issued.

A return has been filed by the answering respondents contending, inter alia, that the Registrar has utilised the power on the basis of correct data and hence, the same cannot be declared as ultra vires on the backdrop of arbitrariness, irrationality and unreasonableness, the order passed on 26-11-2002 in W.P. No. 6323/02 has been brought on record as Annexure R-1 to show that the said controversy is no more res-integra.

We have heard Mr. D.K. Dixit, Mr. K.K. Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S.K. Yadav, learned Government Advocate.

Mr. Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on earlier occasion does not lay down the law correctly and therefore it requires reference to a larger Bench. Mr. Dixit learned counsel for the petitioners in connected matter in W.P. No. 7180/02 has contended that the power has been exercised by the Registrar in a most arbitrary manner and the said facet was not highlighted before the Division Bench and therefore, the matter requires to be referred to a larger Bench. Mr. R.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners appearing in W.P. No. 7213/02 is gone a step further by contending that section 55(1) deserves to be declared as ultra vires as that has conferred unbridled power on the executive.

Mr. Masood Ali, and Mr. Manikant Sharma appearing for the respondents-Banks in certain writ petitions have supported the order passed in writ petition No. 6323/2002.

First we shall deal with the submission whether section 55(1) of the Act should be declared as ultra vires. The said provision reads as under:

55. Registrar's power to determine conditions of employment in societies.-- (1) The