IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 586 of 2001 (Old No.50302 of 1999) Rajendra Singh Kanwal ...................... Petitioner Versus Deputy Director, Co-operative Societies, U.P. Kumaon Mandal, Nainital and others. ................. Respondents ......................... Sri Manoj Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Kailash Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents. Date: Aug. 11, 2008. Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.11.1999 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies whereby in exercise of power under Section 128 of the U.P. Co- operative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as it was then operative, he has returned the resolution for reconsideration. 2. The Society in its special general meeting dated 08.09.1999 passed the resolution for reinstatement of the petitioner. This resolution was again sent for the approval of the Registrar, Co-operative Society under Section 128 of the Act. 3. The Additional Registrar (Hills), Co-operative Societies, U.P. directed the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U.P., Kumaon Region, Nainital to pass the order under Section 128 of the Act. The learned counsel fort the petitioner submitted that Section 128 of the Act does not permit the Registrar to modify the resolution passed by the Co-operative Society. The power of Registrar either to annul the resolution or cancel the same is provided but approval with modification is not provided under Section 128 of the Act. In case the resolution ws required to be modified, it could have been annulled and direction could have been issued to modify it. Thus, the order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies is contrary to provisions of Section 128 of the Act. 4. By resolution dated 08.09.1999 the Co- operative Society in its general meeting passed the resolution to reinstate the petitioner till the trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate is not concluded and sent for its approval. The Deputy Director did not approve the resolution, as such he imposed condition for recovery of Rs. 4.21 lacs as mentioned in the order. Obviously, this order is beyond the scope of provisions of Section 128 of the Act. If the Registrar is not satisfied with the resolution and was of the opinion that the resolution was against the rules and byelaws of the Society, he could have cancelled the resolution under clause (ii) of Sec. 128 of the Act. Therefore, the order of the Deputy Registrar is hereby set aside. The Deputy Registrar is directed to either cancel the resolution dated 08.09.1999 as the criminal case is still pending and no reinstatement can be done or direct the Society to reconsider its resolution again. 5. With the aforesaid observation the petition is disposed of finally. (P.C. Verma, J.) 11.08.2008 P.Singh