Judgment : K. Natarajan, J. This Writ Appeal is filed by the petitioners in W.P(C) No.27342 of 2025 challenging the judgment dated 12.08.2025 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for respondents 7 and 8. 3. The case of the appellants was that, earlier, the appellants filed W.P. (C) No.22976 of 2023 before this Court against Ext. P29 order dated 31.08.2021 passed by the Joint Registrar directing the appellants to prefer an arbitration under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Ambalapuzha. However, the same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide Exhibit P34 judgment dated 24.09.2024. Challenging the same, the appellants filed W.A No.1982 of 2024 before a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 11.12.2024, modified the judgment of the learned Single Judge clarifying that in case the petitioners intend to proceed with the arbitration case seeking refund of deposits, Assistant Registrar, Ambalappuzha, will not be the competent authority to decide the matter and leaving it up to the Registrar General to take a call. Pursuant to the same, the appellants moved Ext. P36 application under Section 69 of the KCS Act before the Registrar General of Co-operative Societies seeking inter alia as follows: ”(b) Set aside Exhibit P27 (the order No.JRGALP/3191/2020-CRB dated 31.8.2021 issued by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Alappuzha after calling for the records leading thereto;” 4. Subsequent to moving the arbitration case, the Registrar General, vide Ext.P38 order dated 14.07.2025, authorised the Joint Registrar (General) to take up the matter. Being aggrieved by the same, once again the appellants/petitioners approached a learned single Judge of this Court by filing W.P. (C) No.27342 of 2025, which was dismissed on the ground that the delegation of the power of the Registrar General is based upon the judgment of the Division Bench in the Writ Appeal No.1982/2024. Hence, the instant writ appeal is filed. 5. Hence, the instant writ appeal is filed. 5. The main contention of the appellants before this Court is that though the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Ambalapuzha, on a complaint made by the appellants before him, directed the appellants on 31.08.2021 to file an arbitration application under Section 69 of the KCS Act, prior to that he had sent a report to the District Collector making certain allegations against the appellants. Therefore, while raising the dispute before the Registrar General under of the KCS Act, the appellants made some allegations against the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Alappuzha District–respondent No.4 and the appellants also sought a second prayer to set aside the very said order passed by the Joint Registrar on 31.08.2021. 6. Such being the case, it is contended that since the very same case or arbitration application was referred to the very same Joint Registrar by this Court, it is not fair to decide the case by himself, as the order passed by him is to be set aside and some allegations were made against the Joint Registrar as well. Therefore, the appellants approached this Court by filing the writ petition to set aside the order of the Registrar General for once again authorising the Joint Registrar to decide the issue. Therefore, they prayed for setting aside the order under challenge. 7. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 8 vehemently objected to the writ appeal and contended that no order was passed by the Joint Registrar on the merits of the case, except referring the matter to the Assistant Registrar (General) of Co-operative Societies, Ambalappuzha to raise arbitration under Section 69 of the KCS Act. Such being the case, once a person is empowered to deal with matters under of the KCS Act, there arises no question of embargo or sitting in appeal over his own orders. Therefore, the learned single Judge of this Court rightly dismissed the writ petition holding that the same does not call for interference. 8. Such being the case, once a person is empowered to deal with matters under of the KCS Act, there arises no question of embargo or sitting in appeal over his own orders. Therefore, the learned single Judge of this Court rightly dismissed the writ petition holding that the same does not call for interference. 8. Upon hearing the arguments and perusing the records, it is not in dispute that an order was passed by the Joint Registrar on 31.08.2021; however, it is not on the merits of the case, but directed the appellants/petitioners to approach the Assistant Registrar under Section 69 of the KCS Act by raising the dispute. The same was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court in the earlier W.A No.1982 of 2024 contending that the Assistant Registrar is not empowered to settle the issue under of the KCS Act. It is only the Joint Registrar or the Registrar General to settle the dispute and pass the award. 9. The Division Bench of this Court has observed that as per Section 69 of the KCS Act, the Joint Registrar or the Registrar General has authority to decide the dispute. However, it was left to the discretion of the Registrar General to take a call. Accordingly, the appellants raised a dispute to pass award under of the KCS Act as per Ext.P31. One of the prayers was to set aside the order passed by the Joint Registrar on 31.08.2021 (mistakenly, it was mentioned as Ext.P27). In paragraph 21 of the application filed by the appellants under of the KCS Act, certain allegations were made against the Joint Registrar as well. On a conjoint reading of paragraph 21 along with the second prayer in the application for setting aside the order passed by the Joint Registrar, it is clear that the very Joint Registrar has made some allegations against the very same appellants as per his report submitted to the District Collector and based upon the same, the appellants made allegations against the Joint Registrar in the application filed under of the KCS Act. 10. 10. Taking into consideration of all these aspects, we find that if the Registrar General of the Co-operative Society as per Ext.P38 order referred the matter to the Joint Registrar, then definitely the petitioners/appellants cannot expect a fair award in the hands of the Joint Registrar as some allegations were made against very same Joint Registrar as well. Such being the case, the appellants/petitioners cannot make any such allegations against the Joint Registrar in the application filed before him under Section 69 of the KCS Act. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellants rightly contended that the matter cannot be referred to the Joint Registrar. It is nothing but sitting on appeal over his own orders. Therefore, the very order passed by the Registrar General under Ext.P38 authorising the Joint Registrar under Section 70(4) (b) of the KCS Act is not correct. Therefore, Ext.P38 order is liable to be set aside or to be modified. It is also brought to our notice by the learned counsel that the State Government also authorises the Additional Registrar General under Section under of the KCS Act. Such being the case, the Registrar General ought to have directed the Additional Registrar General to decide the issue instead of referring the matter to the very same Joint registrar, Alappuzha. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed and Ext.P38 order under challenge is hereby set aside and modified as under: 'The Registrar of Co-operative Society is directed to take up the matter by himself or authorise the Additional Registrar General to decide the issue, instead of the Joint Registrar.'