Jakfed and Another vs U.O.I. and Others

Massodi, J.—The Letters Patent Appeal in hand is directed against the judgment dated 20th May, 2011 in OWP No. 485/2007 titled

JAKFED and others v. Union of India and others 2011 (2) JKJ HC-465"", whereby, the appellants' writ petition has been dismissed. First, an

overview of background facts:

The appellant No. 1 is a society duly registered under Jammu and Kashmir Societies Registration Act, Svt. 1998 (1941 A.D.) The appellant

society sometime back became share holder of Krishak Bharti Co-operative Ltd. (KRIBHCO for short) and took upon itself the responsibility to

supply fertilizers and other products, marketed by KRIBHCO-respondent No. 2 herein, to the member societies of appellant No. 1 in the State of

Jammu and Kashmir. The appellant No. 1 as per the arrangement arrived at, would pick up the supplied fertilizers from Railway Station, Jammu

and transport and deliver it to its member societies at block level, where from it would go to the farmers. The appellant No. 1, in the process,

incurred huge expenditure on account of transportation of the supplied fertilizers from Railway Station, Jammu to its member societies. The matter

was taken up with the Government of India for reimbursement of the extra cost incurred on account of transportation and the Government of India

vide order dated 16th October, 1997 laid down a scheme styled as ""Special Freight Reimbursement Scheme"" (SFRS) operational with effect from

01.04.1997. The appellant society, however, continued to insist on giving retrospective effect to the Scheme. The financial crisis with which the

appellant society was confronted did not come to an end with the ""Special Freight Reimbursement Scheme"". The member societies of the appellant

society, defaulted in making payments due from them, resulting in arbitral proceedings initiated by the appellant society. The arbitral proceedings

resulted in two awards in favour of the appellant society. One against Vijay Co-operative Society and other against Jammu Tehsil Co-Operative

Society.

However, the respondent No. 2 on its part, aggrieved with non-receipt of the amount due to it from the appellant society raised a dispute in

terms of Section 74 (2) (a) of ""The Multi-State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1984"" (""MSCS, Act 1984"" for short) before Central Registrar,

claiming an amount of Rs. 7,44,67,100.40/- (rupees seven crores forty four lakhs sixty seven thousand one hundred and forty paisa) due to the

KRIBHCO-respondent No. 2 till 30th September, 1995. Though the appellant society contested the claim, the proceedings led to decision styled

as ""Judgment"" in terms of Section 76 of the MSCS Act, 1984 by the Central Registrar on 17th August, 1999. The judgment/decision made the

appellant society liable to pay an amount of Rs. 2.91/- crores to the respondent No. 2. The interest accruing on the admitted out-standings of Rs.

2.91/- crores was, however, directed to be waived in view of the financial difficulties in which the appellant society had landed. Appellant society

was asked to make concerted efforts to obtain finances either from its Marketing Societies or from State Governments and give an undertaking

that in the event, such money is obtained from the Marketing Societies, the admitted out-standings of Rs. 2.91/- crores would be the first charge

on the amount.

The respondents as a next step to enforce the judgment/decision dated 17.08.1999, obtained on 18th December, 2003 a ""recovery certificate

in terms of Section 94 (b)(1) of the MSCS Act, 2002 read with sub-rule (2) of Rule 37 of the MSCS Rules, 2002. The ""recovery certificate"" was

questioned by the appellant society in OWP No. 362/2005 on the ground that judgment/decision was made under MSCS Act, 1984 and MSCS

Act, 2002, could not be pressed into service by the respondent No. 2 to obtain ""recovery certificate"". The petition succeeded and the writ Court

vide order dated 27.02.2006 quashed the ""recovery certificate."" The respondent No. 2, not satisfied with the Writ Court order dated 27.02.2006,

filed a Review Petition registered as Review(W) D-5/2006. The review petition was disposed of on 22-12-2006. The Court while disposing of

review petition reiterated that the petitioner (respondent No. 2) was given liberty by the writ Court to seek appropriate remedy. In the meantime,

the respondent No. 2 obtained a fresh ""recovery certificate"" of 10th February, 2006 in terms of sub-rule of Rule 22 of MSCS Rules, 1985 read

with Section 85 (b)(i), MSCS Act, 1984. The process for getting a fresh ""recovery certificate"" was initiated while OWP No. 362/2005 was still

pending before the Court.

The fresh ""recovery certificate"" was also assailed in OWP No. 485/2007 on the ground that the award having been passed under the MSCS

Act, 1984, it could not be executed under MSCS Act, 2002. The appellant society contended that as no proceedings under the MSCS Act, 1984

were pending in any forum at the time of coming into force of MSCS Act, 2002, Section 126(1) of the new Act could not be pressed into service

by the respondents to seek execution of the award.

The writ Court vide judgment dated 20th May, 2011 dismissed OWP No. 485/2007 holding that the course adopted by the respondents in

seeking execution of the decree under the old Act was unconformity with the provisions of the Act. The writ Court rejected the contention of the

petitioners that the judgment/decision could not be executed by taking recourse to Section 85, old Act (MSCS Act, 1984).

The writ Court judgment is assailed in the Letters Patent Appeal in hand on the grounds that the respondent No. 2 did not have a right to get the

recovery certificate"" issued under the provisions of MSCS Act, 2002 ignoring the fact that the dispute was settled by the Central Registrar in

terms of the provisions of Section 76 of MSCS Act, 1984. Such an option according to the appellants was available to the respondents only if the

recovery proceedings were pending on the date MSCS Act, 1984 was replaced by MSCS Act, 2002 and that as no recovery proceedings were

pending on such date, the respondent No. 2 -- KRIBHCO was stripped of any right to seek execution of the judgment/decision under the new

Act inasmuch as it had become un-executable. The appellants further plead that in terms of Sub-Section 5 of Section 84. MSCS Act, 2002,

provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 govern settlement of the dispute under the MSCS Act and the award made assumes the

character of the decree to be executed by the Civil Court under CPC and not in recovery proceedings in terms of MSCS Act, 1984. The

appellants also question respondents' right to have recourse to Section 24 of General Clauses Act, inasmuch as a different procedure was

envisaged under law leaving no room for any ambiguity or confusion.

We have gone through the memorandum of appeal, perused the writ Court record and have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

In order to understand the controversy in right perspective and to decide whether the writ Court order impugned in the appeal warrants any

interference, it would be advantageous to notice of few relevant provisions of MSCS Act, 1984 and MSCS Act, 2002.

Section 76 of MSCS Act, 1984 deals with Settlement of Disputes and reads as under;

(1) The Central Registrar may, on receipt of the reference of dispute u/s 74--

(a) elect to decide the dispute himself; or

(b) transfer it for disposal to any other person who has been invested by the Central Government with powers in that behalf;

(2) The Central Registrar may withdraw any reference transferred under clause (b) of sub-section (1) and decide it himself or refer the same for

decision to any other person who has been invested by the Central Government with powers in that behalf;

(3) The Central Registrar or any other person to whom a dispute is referred for decision under this section may, pending the decision of the

dispute, make such interlocutory orders as he may deem necessary in the interest of justice.

Section 85 of the MSCS Act, 1984 lays down mode and manner for Execution of Decrees, Orders and Decisions and reads as under;

Every decision or order made u/s 30, Section 31, Section 73, Section 76, Section 90, Section 92 or Section 93 shall, if not carried out-

(a) on a certificate signed by the Central Registrar or any person authorized by him in writing in this behalf, be deemed to be a decree of a civil

court and shall be executed in the same manner as if it were a decree of such court; or

(b) where the decision or order provides for the recovery of money, be executed according to the law for the time being in force for the recovery

of arrears of land revenue:

Provided that any application for the recovery in such manner of any sum shall be made--

(i) to the Collector and shall be accompanied by a certificate signed by the Central Registrar or by any person authorized by him in writing in this

behalf;

(ii) within twelve years from the date fixed in the decision or order and if no such date if fixed, from the date of the decision or order, as the case

may be; or

(c) be executed by the Central Registrar or any person authorized by him in writing in this behalf, by attachment and sale or sale, without

attachment of any property of the person or a Multi-State Co-operative Society against whom the decision or order has been made.

It follows that whenever a dispute prior to enactment of MSCS Act, 2002 arose between the Multi-State Co-operative Society and any State

Co-operative Society and such dispute, inter-alia, related to a claim by Multi-State Co-operative Society, such dispute in terms of Section 74 of

the MSCS Act, 1984 was to be referred to Central Registrar for decision and no Court would have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other

proceedings in respect of such dispute. The Central Registrar on receipt of reference of dispute u/s 74 of MSCS Act, 1984, would at his option,

himself deal with and decide the dispute. Where the decision of the Central Registrar provides for recovery of the money, the decision is to be

executed according to the law for the time being in force for the recovery of arrears of land revenue. The 'decision' rendered by the Central

Registrar in the present case on 17th August, 1999 entitled the Multi-State Co-operative Society to get a ""certificate of recovery"" from the Central

Registrar.

Section 84 of the MSCS Act, 2002 like Section 76 of MSCS Act, 1984 deals with Settlement of Disputes. However, Section 84 lays down

mode and mechanism of Settlement of Disputes different from one envisaged u/s 76 of the MSCS Act, 1984. It reads;

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, if any dispute [other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action

taken by a Multi-State Co-operative Society against its paid employee or an industrial dispute as defined in Clause (k) of Section 2 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)] touching the constitution, management or business of a Multi-State Co-operative Society arises-

(a) among members, past members and persons claiming through members, past members and deceased members, or

(b) between a member, past members and persons claiming through a member, past member or deceased member and the Multi-State Co-

operative Society, its board or any officer, agent or employee of the Multi-State Co-operative Society or liquidator, past or present, or

(c) between the Multi-State Co-operative Society or its board and any past board, any officer, agent or employee, or any past officer, past agent

or past employee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent or deceased employee of the Multi-State Co-operative

Society, or

(d) between the Multi-State Co-operative Society and any other Multi-State Co-operative Society, between a Multi-State Co-operative Society

and liquidator of another Multi-State Co-operative Society or between the liquidator of one Multi-State Co-operative Society and the liquidator of

another Multi-State Co-operative Society,

such dispute shall be referred to arbitration.

(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the following shall be deemed to be disputes touching the constitution, management or business of a Multi-

State Co-operative Society, namely:

(a) a claim by the Multi-State Co-operative Society for any debt or demand due to it from a member or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives

of a deceased member, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not;

(b) a claim by a surety against the principal debtor where the Multi-State Co-operative Society has recovered from the surety any amount in

respect of any debt or demand due to it from the principal debtor as a result of the default of the principal debtor, whether such debt or demand is

admitted or not;

(c) any dispute arising in connection with the election of any officer of a Multi-State Co-operative Society.

(3) If any question arises whether a dispute referred to arbitration under this section is or is not a dispute touching the constitution, management or

business of a Multi-State Co-operative Society, the decision thereon of the arbitrator shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court.

(4) Where a dispute has been referred to arbitration under sub-section (1), the same shall be settled or decided by the arbitrator to be appointed

by the Central Registrar.

(5) Save as otherwise provided under this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to all

arbitration under this Act as if the proceedings for arbitration were referred for settlement or decision under the provisions of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996.

Section 94 of MSCS Act, 2002 like Section 85 of MSCS Act, 1984 lays down the procedure for Execution of Decrees, Orders and

Decisions under the Act. It reads;

Every decision or order made u/s 39 or Section 40 or Section 83 or Section 99 or Section 101 shall, if not carried out,--

(a) on a certificate signed by the Central Registrar or any person authorized by him in writing in this behalf, be deemed to be a decree of a Civil

Court and shall be executed in the same manner as if it were a decree of such Court and such decree shall be executed by the Central Registrar or

any person authorized by him in writing in this behalf, by attachment and sale or sale without attachment of any property of the person or a multi-

State co-operative society against whom the decision or order has been made; or

(b) where the decision or order provides for the recovery of money, be executed according to law for the time being in force for the recovery of

arrears of land revenue:

Provided that any application for the recovery of any sum shall be made in such manner--

(i) to the Collector and shall be accompanied by a certificate signed by the Central Registrar or by any person authorized by him in writing in this

behalf;

(ii) within twelve years from the date fixed in the decision or order and if no such date if fixed, from the date of the decision or order, as the case

may be; or

(c) be executed by the Central Registrar or any person authorized by him in writing in this behalf, by attachment and sale or sale, without

attachment of any property of the person or a Multi-State Co-operative Society against whom the decision or order has been made.

What emerges from overview of Sections 84 and 94 of MSCS Act, 2002 is that the dispute between the Multi-State Co-operative Society

and the State Co-operative Society pertaining to a claim by Multi-State Co-operative Society against the latter is to be settled or decided by the

arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Registrar. The provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are to govern the arbitral

proceedings. Section 84 of MSCS Act, 2002 is conspicuous by its absence in the list of the provisions incorporated in Section 94 of MSCS Act,

2002, a decision where under is to be executed in the mode and manner mapped out in Section 94 of MSCS Act, 2002. The reason for such an

omission is not difficult to infer. It may be recalled that disputes mentioned in Section 84 of MSCS Act, 2002 are to be settled or decided by the

Arbitrator and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is to govern the arbitral proceedings. In terms of Section 36 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996, the award made by the Arbitrator is to be enforced under the CPC in the same manner as if it were a decree of the Court.

What would be fate of a 'decision' rendered before the repeal of MSCS Act, 1984 by the Central Registrar in terms of Section 76 of MSCS

Act, 1984 after it is replaced by a new Act viz MSCS Act of 2002 and what would be mode and manner of execution of such decision, is a

question that called for an answer in the writ petition. If appellants' stand is accepted, the award is rendered incapable of execution/in-executable.

The provision that in the first place is to be looked into to find reply to the question is the ""Savings Clause"", if any, incorporated in the MSCS

Act, 2002. Section 126 of MSCS Act, 2002 is the ""Repeal and Saving Clause"" and reflects legislative effort to remove uncertainty, if any, as

regards certificates, notices, decisions, directions, approvals, authorizations and proceedings under the repealed Act, i.e. MSCS 1984.

It would be again profitable to extract Section 126 of MSCS Act, 2002 hereunder;

(1) The Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (51 of 1984) is hereby repealed.

(2) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897) with respect to repeals, any notification, rule,

order, requirement, registration, certificate, notice, decision, direction, approval, authorisation, consent, application, request or thing made, issued,

given or done under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (51 of 1984) shall, if in force at the commencement of this Act, continue to

be in force and have effect as if made, issued given or done under the corresponding provisions of this Act.

(3) Every Multi-State Co-operative Society, existing immediately before the commencement of this Act, which has been registered under the Co-

operative Societies Act, 1912 (2 of 1912) or under any other Act relating to co-operative societies in force, in any State or in pursuance of the

provisions of the Multi-unit Co-operative Societies Act, 1942 (6 of 1942), or the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (51 of 1984),

shall be deemed to be registered under the corresponding provisions of this Act, and the bye-laws of such society shall, in so far as they are not

inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, or the rules, continue to be in force until altered or rescinded.

(4) All appointments, rules and orders made, all notifications and notices issued and all suits and other proceedings instituted under any of the Acts

referred to in sub-section (1) shall, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been respectively made,

issued and instituted under this Act, save that an order made cancelling the registration of a Multi-State Co-operative Society shall be deemed,

unless the society has already been finally liquidated, to be an order made u/s 86 for its being wound up.

(5) The provisions of this Act shall apply to-

(a) any application for registration of a Multi-State Co-operative Society;

(b) any application for registration of amendment of bye-laws of a Multi-State Co-operative Society, pending at the commencement of this Act

and to the proceedings consequent thereon and to any registration granted in pursuance thereof.

(6) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, any legal proceeding pending in any Court or before the Central Registrar or any other authority at the

commencement of this Act shall be continued to be in that Court or before the Central Registrar or that authority as if this Act had not been

passed.

It follows that any notification, order, requirement, registration, certificate, notice, decision etc. issued, given or done under MSCS Act, 1984,

if in force at the commencement of the MSCS Act, 2002, would continue to be in force and have effect as if made, issued, given or done under the

corresponding provision of MSCS Act, 2002. In addition to the notifications, rules, orders, requirements, registrations, decisions, etc. Section 126

of MSCS Act, 2002 also saves any legal proceeding pending in any Court or before the Central Registrar or any other authority at the

commencement of MSCS Act, 2002 and provides for its continuance in that Court or before the Central Registrar or any authority as if MSCS

Act, 2002 was not enacted.

In the present case, admittedly there were no proceedings pending in any Court or before the Central Registrar or any other Authority touching

the decision dated 17th August, 1999 styled as ""Judgment"" by the Central Registrar, whereby the dispute between parties was settled or the

recovery certificate"", dated 10.02.2006, issued pursuant to the said award. In the circumstances as rightly pointed out by the writ Court, Section

126(6) MSCS Act, 2002 has no application. Let us turn to Section 126(2) to see whether the decision in question falls within purview of the said

provision. In order to attract Section 126(2) and to declare the decision in question to continue to be in force and have effect as if made, issued,

given or done under the MSCS Act, 2002, it is necessary that there must be a provision in MSCS Act, 2002 corresponding to the provision of

MSCS Act, 1984, whereunder the decision in question is to be executed.

It is in the first instance to be pointed out that a 'decision' rendered u/s 76, MSCS Act, 1984 is not an 'award' within meaning of the Arbitration

Act, 1940. Sections 74, 76 and 85 of MSCS Act, 1984 refer to it as 'decision' and do not make such 'decision' executable in the manner

execution of 'award' is provided for under the Arbitration Act, 1940. Section 85 instead lays down the procedure for execution of the 'decision'

rendered by the Central Registrar u/s 76 of MSCS Act, 1984. Formal expression of such 'decision', in the shape of Certificate signed by the

Central Registrar or any person authorized by him, is in terms of Section 85 deemed to be a decree of Civil Court and is to be executed in the

same manner as if it were a decree of the Court. However, where a 'decision' provides for recovery of money, it is to be executed according to the

law for the time being in force for the recovery of arrears of land revenue. In terms of Section 88 of MSCS Act, 1984, the Central Registrar or the

person authorized by him when exercising any powers under the Act, for recovery of any amount by the attachment and sale or by sale without

attachment of any property is to be a Civil Court for the purposes of Article 136 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. The 'decision'

rendered u/s 76 is appealable in terms of Section 90. The 'decision' like an 'award' made under the Arbitration Act, 1940 cannot be assailed by an

application u/s 30 of the Act, but can only called in question through medium of appeal u/s 90 of MSCS Act, 1984. The Central Government is

vested with the power of revision and has supervisory jurisdiction even over the proceedings u/s 76 before the Central Registrar. Same is not true

about the arbitral proceedings under the Arbitration Act, 1940. Let us go to Multi State Co-operative Societies (Registration, Membership,

Direction & Management, Settlement of Disputes, Appeal & Revision), Rules 1985 made in exercise of powers conferred by Section 109 of

MSCS Act, 1984. Rule 36 lays down a procedure in proceedings before the Central Registrar. The Rule needs to be noticed. It reads as under;

Procedure in proceedings before Central Registrar--

(1) A reference to the Central Registrar of any dispute u/s 74 shall be in writing. Every such reference shall be accompanied with a fee of rupees

ten for the money claims not exceeding rupees one thousand and rupees fifty in all other cases.

(2) On receipt of a reference under sub-rule (1) the Central Registrar may elect to decide the dispute himself or refer it for disposal to any other

person who has been invested with powers of the Central Registrar u/s 76 by the Central Government.

(3) The Central Registrar or other person deciding the dispute shall record a brief note of the evidence on the parties and witnesses who appear

before him and upon the evidence so recorded and after consideration of any documentary evidence produced by the parties, a decision shall be

given in accordance with justice, equity and good conscience by the Central Registrar or other person deciding the dispute. The decision given

shall be in writing.

In the absence of any party duly summoned to attend, the dispute may be decided ex-parte. Ex-parte decision may, on sufficient cause for non-

attendance being shown, be set aside by the Central Registrar or other person deciding the dispute, and the dispute ordered to be re-taken on the

registrar of disputes and disposed of:

Provided that no application for setting aside an ex-parte decision shall lie unless made within thirty days from the date of such decision and the

party for whose non-attendance such decision was made had been duly served with the notice, or in other cases within thirty days from the date of

knowledge of such decision having been made.

(4) The decision shall be communicated to the parties by,--

(i) Pronouncement of the decision; or

(ii) Registered post to any party which may be absent on the date the decision is given.

(5) The Central Registrar or the person deciding the dispute, shall have power to appoint or remove a guardian for the party to the dispute, if any

such party is a minor or a person with unsound mind or mental infirmity, and is incapable of protecting his interests.

(6) A duly certified copy of the decision shall, on application, be given to the parties to the dispute by the Central Registrar or the person deciding

the dispute, on payment of copying charges at the rate of rupee one per page.

Taking a holistic view of the above referred provisions of MSCS Act, 1984 and the rules made there under, it becomes amply clear that the

Central Registrar while dealing with a dispute u/s 76 does not act as Arbitrator and 'decision' rendered by him is not an ""award"" within meaning of

MSCS Act, 1984.

To further reinforce the proposition that the 'decision' rendered u/s 76 is not an 'award' ""stricto seno"", a bird's eyeview of relevant provisions of

MSCS Act, 2002 is called for. Section 84 of MSCS Act, 2002 corresponding to Section 74 of MSCS Act, 1984 provides for reference of the

dispute to ""Arbitration"" and not to the ""Central Registrar for decision"". In terms of Section 84 of MSCS Act, 2002, the dispute referred to

arbitration"" shall be ""settled"" by the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Registrar. Section 84(5) makes the provisions of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996 applicable to the arbitration under the Act. Section 99 of MSCS Act, 2002 providing for appeal from orders made by the

Central Registrar, does not include an order u/s 84 of the Act in the list of orders appealable under the Section. The Multi State Co-operative

Societies Rules, 2002 unlike the Rules of 1985 under the previous Act, do not lay down procedure for proceedings before the Central Registrar

regarding disputes referred u/s 84 of MSCS Act, 2002. It follows that law makers had to expressly provide that the settlement made by the

Central Registrar, u/s 84 of MSCS Act, 2002 would be an ""award"" executable in the manner provided under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

1996. The 'decision' of the Central Registrar rendered u/s 76 of MSCS Act, 1984, as already pointed out, is to be executed in accordance with

Section 85 of MSCS Act, 1984. The brief discussion regarding nature of 'decision' rendered by Central Registrar u/s 76 of MSCS Act, 1984 is to

be followed by an effort to examine whether there is a provision under MSCS Act, 2002 corresponding to Section 85 of MSCS Act, 1984. If a

corresponding provision is found in the new Act, Section 126(2) of MSCS Act, 2002 would come into play and the 'decision' rendered by the

Central Registrar u/s 76 of MSCS Act, 1984 would in terms of Section 126(2) of MSCS Act, 2002 ""continue to be in force and have effect as if

made, issued, given or done"" under the corresponding provision of this Act. Section 94 of MSCS Act, 2002, as already noticed, lays down the

procedure for execution of decrees, orders and decisions under the Act. It, for the obvious reason does not refer to execution of an ""award"" made

u/s 84 of the Act, as such an ""award"" is to be executed in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 94(b) proviso like

Section 85 of MSCS Act, 1984 lays down that where the decision or the order provides for the recovery of any such money, the order is to be

executed according to the law for the time being in force for the recovery of arrears of land revenue. It is, thus, evident that there is a

corresponding provision under MSCS Act, 2002 and the 'decision' of Central Registrar dated 17th August, 1999 holding the appellant society

liable to pay an amount of Rs. 2.91/- crores to respondent No. 2 is in force as if made under MSCS Act, 2002, and executable in accordance

with the procedure laid down u/s 94 of the MSCS Act, 2002.

So viewed, there is no reason to fall back upon section 24 of General Clauses Act, 1897. The conclusion drawn by the writ Court that as

there was no corresponding provision in MSCS Act, 2002, the 'decision' of the Central Registrar dated 17th August, 1999 was not to be treated

as in force on the date of commencement of the MSCS Act, 2002 u/s 126(2) and that the 'decision' in question was to be treated as in force and

as if made under the MSCS Act, 2002, u/s 24 of General Clauses Act, 1897 is not tenable. However, disagreement with the view taken by the

learned Writ Court, in this regard, does not change the end result. The only conclusion to be drawn either way is that the 'decision' of the Central

Registrar dated 17th August, 1999 as rightly held by the writ Court is in force as if rendered under MSCS Act, 2002 and executable in

accordance with the provisions of the MSCS Act, 2002.

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.