1. Revision u/s. 77 (14) has been preferred against the order of Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies (HQ) passed u/s. 53 (10) on 12.6.2009 through which the Board of the applicants has been placed under suspension.

2. According to the brief facts of the matter, applicant No.5 is the District Agricultural Rural Development Bank registered u/s. 9 of the Act. Applicant No.1 is the Chairman and the applicants No. 2,3 and 4 are Directors of it. Applicants are aggrieved by the impugned order of the non-applicant No.1 Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, (HQ) who vide the impugned order has placed the Board of applicant No.5 Bank under suspension as provided u/s 55 (10) of the Act. It is worth recording that the non-applicant Joint Registrar (HQ) has already initiated action u/s 53 (2) by issuing a notice for superseding the Board of Directors u/s 53 (1) of the Act on the allegations levelled against it. A separate notice u/s 53 (10) was also issued and the same has culminated into a final order issued on 12.6.2009 against which this Revision is preferred.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant had levelled a number of charges against non-applicant for proceeding against the applicants malafidely and also on political grounds. However, as it is an interim order passed u/s. 53 (10) which has been assailed and is before us for consideration, we are neither inclined to go into such details or even into the merits and de-merits of the charges as it is the subject matter of final order if any passed u/s. 53 (1) of the Act by the non-applicant No.1 Joint Registrar (HQ). Since the same is still in process we would also not like to make any assessment or even make any observation on the nature and the quality of the allegations as that may have a bearing on the order to be passed by the Joint Registrar which is not in accordance with a judicial properly of the matter.

4. The counsel for the applicants further stated that the applicants have been proceeded against on the actions of the previous Board which is unjustified and worth setting aside in light of 2003 RN 35 Narayan Singh Meena v. M.P. State Co-operative Tribunal. It was also submitted that the impugned order of the Joint Registrar is hit by the principle of res judicata as well. Initially Joint Registrar; Gwalior while issuing notice u/s. 53 (2) had also placed the Board of the applicant Bank under the supervision of the Collector. Therefore, by the impugned order suspending the Board again is not proper according to the principle of res judicata.

5. Shri Anoop sharma, learned Govt. counsel submitted that the impugned order is just an interim measure and the applicants are at liberty to forward all the arguments they are placing before the Tribunal before the Joint Registrar (HQ) in the main case under consideration of him in section 53 (2). He also submitted that the impugned order is at all not hit by the principle of res judicata as section 53 (10) provides separately the two stages of Order i.e. placing the Board under suspension in accordance with section 53 (10) and suspending the Board in accordance with the proviso added into it.

6. It is clear from the simple reading of section 53 (10) that the Act intends to proceed simulataneously while contemplating super session u/s. 53 (10) to also suspend the Board in special circumstances as the Registrar might not consider the continuation of it in the interest of the society. Initially it was only a supervisory authority who could have been appointed but vide Amendment No. 14 of 1976 the proviso has been inserted about the suspension of the Board. In 1988 through Amendment No. 25 a further proviso has been added requiring the Registrar to provide the opportunity of hearing to the Board before suspension. This is obviously in accordance with the principle of natural justice and in accordance with the rulings of the Court. It is in this light only that the Tribunal in its Judgment reported in