JUDGMENT
B.A. Khan, J.
1. The limited question that arises in this petition is whether appeal would lie before Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Section 76 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 against the decision of Board of Directors of R-3 Cooprating petitioner as Director/Advisor under Bye-law 30(3).
2. Petitioner is a member of this respondent, a Co-operative Society and was first elected its Director, on 6.2.94 and he functioned in that capacity till August, 1999. He sought to contest for the post of Chairman but was dis-qualified in terms of Rule 59 for allegedly carrying on a similar business as that of respondent No. 2. Returning Officer dis-qualified him on the basis that he was the Director of M/s. Bone Lone Securities Ltd. and Clauses 9,14 and 15 of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of that Company established that he was carrying on a similar business. He appealed to Financial Commissioner who passed a brief order un-supported by any reasons affirming the order of Returning Officer. He then filed CM(M) 788/99 which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 13th November, 2000 quashing the orders disqualifying him and remanding the matter to Financial Commissioner for re-consideration and disposal of his appeal on merits.
3. Consequent upon petitioner’s disqualification, respondent No. 2 filed an appeal under Section 76(2)(c) of the Act challenging his continuance as member of the Society and his Cooption to the Board of Directors. Petitioner took a preliminary objection that this appeal was not maintainable under Section 76 against the decision/orders of Board of Directors of the Society Cooprating him as Director/Advisor of the Bank under Bye-law 30(iii). His objection was overruled and hence this petition.
4. Section 76 of the Act reads thus:
“76. Appeals- (1) Subject to the provisions of Section 77, an appeal shall lie under this section against-
(a) an order of the Registrar made under Sub-section (2) of Section 9 refusing to register a society;
(b) an order of the Registrar made under Sub-section (4) of Section 11 refusing to register an amendment of the bye-laws of a co-operative society:
(c) an order of the Registrar made under Sub-section (1) of Section 16;
(d) a decision of a co-operative society refusing to admit any person as a member of the society who is otherwise duly qualified for membership under the bye-laws of the society.
(e) a decision of a co-operative society expelling any of its members;
(f) on order of the Registrar removing the committee of a co-operative society made under Section 32;
(g) an order made by the Registrar under Section 57 apportioning the costs of an enquiry held under Section 55 or an inspection made under Section 56;
(h) any order of surcharge under Section 59. (i) any decision or award made under Section 61;
(j) an order made by the Registrar under Section 63 directing the winding up of a co-operative society;
(k) any order made by the liquidator of a co-operative society in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Section 67;
(1) any order made under Section 73;
(2) An appeal against any decision or order under Sub-section (1) shall be made within sixty days from the date of the decision or order-
(a) if the decision or order falls under Clause (g), (h), (i), or (1) of Sub-section (1), to the Tribunal;
(b) if the decision or order falls under Clause (f), to the Lieutenant-Governor;
(c) in any other case, to the Lieutenant-Governor or the Registrar according as the decision or order was made by the Registrar or any other person.
(3) No appeal shall lie under this section from any decision or order made by the registrar in appeal.
5. The provisions of this Section contain a long list of orders against which remedy of Appeal is provided. But somehow it does contain or mention an order/decision passed by Board of Directors, Cooprating a person as Director or Adviser under bye-law 9(iii). Nor is it contemplated by Sub-section (2)(c) of this as claim by respondent No. or as held by the Registrar. Sub-clause (2) only prescribes period of limitation and wades for forums where as appeal would lie in respect of decision/order passed by Authorities mentioned in sub-clause.
6. Clause(a) of this provides that an appeal against decision/order falling under Clauses (g) (h) (i) and (e) of Sub-section (1) shall lie to the Tribunal and Clause (b) says that if the order would fall under Clause (f), it shall lie to the Lieutenant Governor and lastly controversial Clause (c) provides that in any other case, an appeal shall lie to the Lieutenant Governor or the Registrar according to the decision or order made by the Registrar or any other person. The expression “in any other case” contemplates cases which are not covered by Clauses (g) (h) (i) (e) and (f) of Section 76(1) and as referred to in Sub-clause (a) & (b) of Sub-clause (2). It does not provide for a free for all Appeal against orders and decisions that may be passed under the Act and when read in the context of other clause of Sub-section (2) and not independently, it leaves no scope for doubt, that it is a residuary clause providing for an Appeal against orders left uncovered by Clause (g)(h)(i) and (f) of Section 76(1).
7. The right of appeal undoubtedly is a statutory right which is not available unless specifically provided or created. Therefore, once it is not provided by Section 76(1) that an appeal would lie against order/decision of Board of Directors Cooprating a Director/Advisor, it would not be available.
8. Viewed thus it emerges that Registrar has wrongly assumed the jurisdiction under Section 76 of the Act, when it was not vested in him. The order passed by him, therefore, become a nullity and is set aside. It is a different matter whether the remedy against such a decision/order lay under Section 60 of the Act or elsewhere.
9. This petition accordingly succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order dated 25.2.2000 is set aside.