M.L. Verma, J. - The material facts leading to this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent are in brief as under :- The Punjab State Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank Limited Chandigarh (hereinafter called the Bank) and the Patiala Primary Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank Limited, Patiala (hereinafter called the Member Society) are registered under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act (XXV of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Member Society as well as such other Primary Cooperative Land Mortgage Banks numbering forty-two are members of the Bank. All these Member Societies are entitled to elect the members of their Managing Committees. Each district is a zone and elected members of the Managing Committee of each Society located in one zone, that is, in one district are entitled to elect one of them to represent at the time of the election of the Directors of the Bank. The said representative may himself contest the election to become a Director or may vote for a representative of any other society contesting election to become a Director of the Bank. In the beginning of year 1973, the Board of Directors of Bank ceased to hold office and the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies (hereinafter to as the Registrar) in exercise of the power available to him under Section 26(1D) of the Act appointed Shri Gurcharan Singh, Additional Registrar, as Administrator of the Bank on January 5, 1973. Two months later, that is, on March 2, 1973, the Registrar appointed Shri H.S. Brar, Joint Registrar as Administrator of the Bank in place of Shri Gurcharan Singh. Initially the term of the Administrator appointed under section 26(1D) of the Act was six months. So, the term of Shri H.S. Brar as Administrtor expired on July 5, 1973, but he continued to act as Administrator even after the said date. Ordinance No. 9 of 1973 which was promulgated on November 29, 1973, extended the said term to 18 months, though with a proviso that when the Registrar would extend the period beyond one year, he would record reasons for doing so. It also validated the continuation of the Administrator who had been appointed after January 1, 1973. The said Ordinance was replaced by the Punjab Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 1974 (hereinafter called the Amending Act) which came into force on March 31, 1974. Its provisions were similar to that of the aforesaid Ordinance No. 9. In exercise of the powers available to the Registrar under sub-section (1d) of section 26 under Ordinance No. 9, the Additional Registrar extended on January 4, 1974, the term of Shri H.S. Brar as Administrator up to July 5, 1974. In the month of May, 1974, Shri H.S. Brar prepared the zonal list and also programme for election of the Directors of the Bank and the same were approved by the Registrar in the month of June, 1974. Six members of the Managing Committee of the Member Society were elected on May 30, 1974. The appellants who were petitioners in the writ petition are five out of them. The election of the sixth member of the Managing Committee of the Member Society had been stayed due to some civil action. But that had no relevancy for the decision of the writ petition. The appellants received intimation on July 19, 1974 to the effect that election of the Directors of the Bank would take place on August 12, 1974, and they were asked to send their representative to participate in the said election and to intimate the name of the said representative on August 4, 1974. The appellants, therefore, filed Civil Writ Petition No. 4221 on August 8, 1974, for writ of certiorari or any other direction or order quashing the programme relating to the election of the Directors of the Bank on various grounds, including that the information regarding election programme had been furnished to them very late, whereby they were denied reasonable opportunity to elect a representative who could participate in the election of the Directors of the Bank. The said writ petition was opposed by the respondents and the learned Single Judge dismissed it on September 9, 1974. Dissatisfied with the said result, the appellants have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. The facts that the appellants and one other had been elected as members of the Managing Committee of the Member Society on May 30, 1974; that the member Society is one of the five such Societies which formed one zone and every one of the said five Societies was entitled to send one representative each to participate in the election of Directors of the Bank; that information dated July 17, 1974, intimating that election of the Directors of the Bank would take place on August 12, 1974 and it (the Member Society) could send its representative to participate in it and information about his (representative's) name be furnished to the Bank on August 4, 1974, are not in controversy. The further facts, that the term of Shri H.S. Brar as Administrator had been extended on January 4, 1974 upto July 5, 1974 by the Additional Registrar; that the programme, including the preparation of zones, date of election etc. of the Directors of the Bank had been prepared by Shri H.S. Brar in the month of May, 1974, and the same had been approved by the Registrar in the month of June, 1974, are also no longer in dispute. 3. Assailing the judgment of the learned Single Judge, Mr. Kuldip Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, raised two contentions: firstly that the term of Shri H.S. Brar could only be extended by the Registrar and since the same had been extended on January 4, 1974, upto July 5, 1974, by the Additional Registrar, who was not empowered to grant the said extension, the act of Shri H.S. Brar in preparing the zones and the programme for election of the Directors of the Bank was invalid, being without jurisdiction, and the approval granted by the Registrar to the same could not validate it, and, secondly, that the appellants were deprived of sending their representative to participate in the election of the Directors of the Bank because of the delay in the supply of information of the election programme to them. Elaborating his first contention, Mr. Kuldip Singh argued that the power to appoint Administrator of the bank for a term extending to 18 months was given to the Registrar and to him alone, on November 29, 1973, by Ordinance No. 9 of 1973, and then by the Amending Act, and since no notification delegating the aforesaid power available to the Registrar under sub-section (1d) of section 26 of the Act, introduced by the aforesaid Ordinance or the Amending Act had been issued by the Government, the Additional Registrar had no authority to extend the term of Shri H.S. Brar as Administrator of the Bank on January 4, 1974 upto July 5, 1974. The said argument may be attractive, but on close scrutiny, in view of the legal position, the same cannot be accepted as real. Sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Act empowers the Government to confer on any person appointed under sub-section (2), including the Additional Registrar, all or any of the powers of the Registrar under the Act. It was on December 22, 1971, that by notification No. S.O./P.A.25/61/S.3/6593 (hereinafter referred to as the notification), the Government had conferred on the Additional Registrar all the powers of the Registrar exercisable under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder from time to time. sub-section (1d) of section 26 of the Act, as it stood on the date of the notification, i.e., on December 22, 1971, read as under :- "Where any committee has ceased to hold office and no committee has been constituted in accordance with the provisions of this act and rules and bye- laws made thereunder, the Registrar may appoint a Government servant as an Administrator for a period not exceeding six months and the Administrator shall, before the expiry of the said period, arrange for the constitution of a new committee in accordance with the provisions of this act and rules and bye-laws made thereunder." Therefore, undoubtedly, by virtue of the notification, the Additional Registrar could, in exercise of the powers available to the Registrar under sub-section (1d) of section 26 of the Act, appoint an Administrator for a period extending to six months. The said sub-section (1D) was substituted with effect from November 29, 1973, by Ordinance No. 9, by the following sub- section :- "Where any committee has ceased to hold office and no committee has been constituted in accordance with the provisions of this act, and rules and bye- laws made thereunder, the Registrar may, by an order in writing, appoint a Government servant as an Administrator for such period as may, for time to time, be specified in the order and the Administrator shall, before the expiry of the period of his appointment, arrange for the constitution of a new committee in accordance with the provisions of this act, and rules and bye- laws made thereunder :- Provided that the total period for which an Administrator may be appointed shall not in any case exceed one year and six months and in case such period is to be extended beyond one year the Registrar shall record his reasons in writing for such extension." To the similar effect is sub-section (1d) of the amending act which had been substituted for the earlier sub-section (1d) of section 26 of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be gainsaid that after November 29, 1973, the Registrar had the power to appoint an Administrator of the bank for a term extending to 18 months. Mr. Kuldip Singh argued that when the Government issued the notification conferring on the Additional Registrar all the powers of the Registrar exercisable under the Act, it knew and intended to confer the power to appoint an Administrator, on the Additional Registrar for a period of six months only as contemplated by sub-section (1d) of section 26 of the Act as it stood on December 22, 1971. He added that the effect of Ordinance No. 9 of 1973 and the Amending Act, by which old sub-section (1D) had been substituted by the new sub-section (1d) of section 26 of the Act, empowering the Registrar to appoint an Administrator for a period of 18 months, was that the notification should be disregarded respecting the powers claimed by the Additional Registrar under section 26(1D) of the Act. So, according to him, when no notification had been issued by the Government conferring the powers available to the Registrar, under the substituted sub-section (1d) of section 26 of the Act, to the Additional Registrar after November 29, 1973, when Ordinance No. 9 of 1973 came into force, the Additional Registrar was not empowered on January 4, 1974, to extend the term of Shri H.S. Brar as Administrator up to July 5, 1974. To put it differently, he was of the view that the notification did not survive respecting the powers of Additional Registrar to be exercised under section 26(1D) of the Act after the coming into force of Ordinance No. 9 of 1973 and the Additional Registrar could not therefore, exercise the powers of the Registrar available to him under the substituted sub-section (1d) of section 26 of the Act, to extend the term of the Shri H.S. Brar, Administrator, for 6 months ending on July 5, 1974. He sought support to his aforesaid argument from Emperor v. Rayangouda Lingangouda Patil, AIR 1944 Bombay 259, Amarsingh Rajendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, AIR 1965 Madhya Pradesh 126, Kulwant Singh v. The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rohtak and others, 1969 P.L.R. 1016, and Corporation of Calcutta v. Gayatri Chatterjee and others, 63 C.W.N. 1002. 4. In my opinion, none of the said judgments can be of any avail to the appellants for the reason that these were rendered in different context and all the four cases related to new powers which were not in existence at the time when the delegation of the same had been made. Rayangouda Lingangouda Patil's case and Amarsingh Rajendra Singh's cse (supra) related to detention matters under the defence of india rules, which were of criminal nature. It appears that in Rayangouda Lingangouda Patil's case (supra) the powers to detain a person under rulr 26 of the defence of india rules were delegated by the Government of Bombay to all District Magistrates on December 19, 1941. Later, on August 15, 1942, the said rule 26 was amended and sub-rule (5B)(b) was added thereto, granting power to the State Government to direct the person, whose detention had been ordered, to present himself before some named person on penalty of 7 years' rigorous imprisonment for beach of the order. Those powers available under sub-rule (5B)(b) of rule 26 were not delegated by the State Government to the District Magistrates. In absence of such delegation, the District Magistrate of Belgaum had passed order on September 6, 1942, directing the accused persons to present themselves before the District Superintendent of Police by a certain date. In Amarsingh Rajendra Singh's case (supra), the power to detain persons for any of the purposes mentioned in rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules was delegated by the State Government on November 20, 1962, to the District Magistrates. On December 28, 1952, by the amendment of the said rule 30, the State Government was for the first time authorised to order detention of a person also on the ground that it was necessary to detain him for preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the supplies and services essential to the life of the community. The said powers were, however, not delegated to the District Magistrates. In absence of delegation of the said powers the District Magistrate, Raipur, had passed the order directing detention of Santokhsingh on the ground that it was necessary to detain him for preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the supplies and services essential to the life of the community. It is, thus, clear that in both the said cases new powers were granted to the State Governments by virtue of amendment of certain rules. The said new powers had not been delegated by the State Government to the District Magistrates, but the latter had passed certain orders in exercise of the said new powers. It was in that situation that it was observed in these two cases that the powers could be delegated by the State Government only after the State Government itself was vested with it. Since the additional powers had not been delegated to the District Magistrates by the State Government after the same (the additional powers) became vested in the State Governments by the amendments, the District Magistrates had no authority to direct detention on the grounds which were made available by the amendments of the rules. Further, in Rayangouda Lingangouda Patil's case, there was another infirmity and that was that the accused persons had no knowledge of the orders passed by the District Magistrate directing them to present themselves before the Superintendent of Police. Kulwant Singh's case (supra) also related to the new power which had been given to the Registrar by clause (ia) of rule 80(1) for the first time by the Punjab Co-operative Societies (First Amendment) Rules, 1965. Therefore, it was held that when the said powers were not available to the Registrar himself on September 12, 1963, when he had delegated the powers exercisable by him to the Deputy Registrar, the latter could not exercise the powers of the Registrar which had come into existence about 2 years after the delegation of the powers. In Corporation of Calcutta's case (supra), the Executive Officer had only the power to fix annual value of premises when he delegated the same to the Assessors on April 8, 1924. He did not then possess the powers to revise the annual value of premises during the currency of the earlier assessment. The said power to revise the annual value of premises during the currency of earlier assessment was conferred on the Executive Officer on April 12, 1950, by West Bengal Act XXVIII of 1950. The Assessor revised the annual value of certain premises during the currency of the earlier assessment, although the said power had not been delegated to him by the Executive Officer. It was observed in that situation that the Assessor did not possess the power to revise the annual value during the currency of the earlier assessment for the reason that there could not be prospective delegation of such powers which had been conferred on the Executive Officer himself much after the date when he made the delegation of the powers exercisable by him. In the instant case, as is clear from sub-section (1d) of section 26 of the Act as it stood on December 22, 1971, when the notification was issued, the Registrar had the power to appoint Administrator, though the period for which the Administrator could be appointed, extended to six months. Neither Ordinance No. 9 of 1973 nor the Amending Act granted any new power to the Registrar in the matter of appointment of the Administrator by substituting sub-section (1d) of section 26, reproduced above. It had only extended the period of 6 months to 18 months for which the appointment of Administrator could be made. The notification was issued under sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Act. The said sub-section (3) of section 3 has not been altered or amended. Therefore, it would not be legitimate to say that the notification does not survive respecting the conferment of the powers of the Registrar to appoint an Administrator of a Committee on the Additional Registrar because of the substitution of sub-section (1d) of section 26 of the Act by Ordinance No. 9 of 1973 or the Amending Act; though it (the notification) survives with regard to conferment of powers exercisable by the Registrar under the other provisions of the Act on the Additional Registrar. Such partial survival or modification of the notification would, in my opinion be neither contemplated nor legal. So, the notification is alive as a whole. The effect of substitution of sub-section (1D) of section 26 by Ordinance No. 9 of 1973 and the Amending Act is just as if it (the substituted sub-section (1D)) had been inserted in the original Act and the said Act must be so read as at present, on November 29, 1973, when the Ordinance was promulgated as well as on January 4, 1974 when the Additional Registrar extended the term of Shri H.S. Brar as Administrator up to July 5, 1974. As remarked above, the notification is operative and effective and when the same is read with the substituted sub- section (1D) of section 26 of the Act, the conclusion is inescapable that the Additional Registrar had the power on January 4, 1974 to extend the term of Shri H.S. Brar as Administrator up to July 5, 1974. Since the said power was exercisable by the Registrar, the same should be taken to have been conferred on the Additional Registrar by virtue of the notification. 5. A view similar to the one expressed above was taken in The Telangkhedi Cooperative Dairy Society Ltd., Nagpur and others v. The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nagpur and others, AIR 1958 Bombay 330. In the said case, the State Government conferred on the Deputy Registrar by notification the power which could be exercised by the Registrar under section 11 of the Co-operative Societies Act, on October 19, 1949. The said section 11 dealt with the topic of amendment of bye-laws by a Society and it was then comprised of three sub-sections. Sub-sections (4) to (9) were introduced in the said section 11 some time after October 19, 1949, the date of notification, on November 18, 1949. The Deputy Registrar acted in the year 1956 in exercise of the powers available to the Registrar under sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 11. His act to exercise the said powers under sub-sections (4) and (5) was assailed with the contention that as the notification conferring the powers of Registrar under section 11 had been issued before the introduction of sub-sections (4) and (5) in section 11, the Deputy Registrar had no power to make orders under sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 11. The said contention was repelled and it was held that the notification had conferred on the Deputy Registrar the entire powers which could be exercised by the Registrar under section 11 of the Act and, as such, the Deputy Registrar was competent to exercise the powers available to the Registrar under sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 11, though the same had been introduced some time about a month after the date of notification. 6. It, thus, follows that in view of the legal position, discussed above, the contention of Mr. Kuldip Singh, that the extension of the term of Administrator granted to Shri H.S. Brar on January 4, 1974 up to July 5, 1974, by the Additional Registrar was invalid being without jurisdiction and, therefore, the act of Shri H.S. Brar in preparing the zonal list and programme for election of the Directors of the Bank was also invalid, cannot prevail and the same is repelled. 7. Rule 23 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, 1963, provides that members of the Committee, including the Directors of the Bank, are to be elected in accordance with the rules given in Appendix C (hereinafter called the Appendix). According to rule 4 of the Appendix, the Manager has to draw a detailed programme of election and send the same to the Registrar for approval. He has also to prepare zonal list of the voters. "Manager", according to clause (d) of rule 1 of the Appendix, means any person appointed as such by the Registrar for the purpose of the provisions contained in the Appendix and if no such person is appointed, then the head of office of a Cooperative Society by whatsoever name called, to whom the management of the society is entrusted. There is nothing to show, and it was not urged, that the Registrar had appointed any Manager of the Bank under clause (d) of the said rule 1. Admittedly, and it was not disputed that Shri H.S. Brar being the Administrator was the head of the office of the Bank and the Management of the Bank had been entrusted to him. So, by virtue of the definition, vide clause (d) of rule 1, referred to above, he was the Manager at the relevant time. As such, he was competent to prepared to zonal list of the voters and also to draw up the programme of election of Directors of the Bank and send the same for approval to the Registrar in the month of May, 1974. The said zonal list and election programme had been approved by the Registrar. Therefore, no infirmity or error in law can be found in the preparation of zonal list or of the election programme of the Directors of the Bank and the approval granted thereto by the Registrar. 8. Elucidating his second contention, Mr. Kuldip Singh argued that since the Member Society had received intimation on July 19, 1974, about the programme of election of the Directors of the Bank, the appellants had no sufficient time to convene a meeting to elect one of them to represent them at the time of election of the Directors of the Bank which was to be held on August 12, 1974. According to him, and so is required by rule 80 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, at least 15 days' clear notice specifying the date, place, time and agenda for the meeting has to be given to all the members of the Managing Committee. Its proviso, however, provides that a short notice can be given to the members of the Society with the permission of the Registrar or under his direction. The Deputy Registrar is authorised to grant the said permission on behalf of the Registrar. Since it was on July 19, 1974, that the Member Society had received the intimation that election of the Directors of the Bank was to be held on August 12, 1974, there were definitely more than 15 days with it (the Member Society) for convening the meeting to elect its representative to participate in the said election. Mr. Kuldip Singh complained that the manager of the Member Society did not intentionally convene such a meeting and when the appellants approached the Deputy Registrar for permission to hold an emergent meeting at short notice, he (the Deputy Registrar) happened to be on leave and all this had resulted in debarring the appellants from sending its representatives to participate in the election of the Directors of the bank. There seems no merit in the said complaint. The appellants were elected as members of the Managing Committee on May 30, 1974. Bye-law 34(vi) of the Member Society required the appellants to elect one of them to represent at the time of election of the Directors of the Bank. So, they were conscious of the fact that one of them had to be elected to represent at the time of election of the Directors of the Bank. The appellants are five out of the six elected members of the Managing Committee of the Society. All of them belong to one group. They had held at least one meeting on July 10, 1974. They did not take any steps to elect one of them to represent the Member Society at the time of election of the Directors of the Bank, at any time after May 30, 1974, when, as indicated above, they had been elected as members of the Managing Committee or on July 10, 1974, when the meeting had been held. It is, thus, clear that the appellants had more than enough time, i.e, from May 30, 1974 onwards to elect one of them to represent at the time of election of the Directors of the Bank, which was ultimately held on August 12, 1974. The right to elect one of them to represent at the time of election of the Directors of the Bank was available to the appellants under the Rules and bye-laws and the said right had no relevancy with the receipt of intimation regarding the programme relating to the election of the Directors of the Bank. The appellants, therefore, should have not waited for receipt of the said intimation. On the other hand, they should have taken steps for convening a meeting to elect one of them to represent the Member Society at the time of election of the Directors of the Bank, in the month of June or in the first half of July, 1974. Having failed to do so, they can blame none else but themselves for creating a situation whereby they could not participate in the election of the Directors of the Bank through their representative. The Bank had to hold election of its Directors according to its bye-laws. Its membership extended to 42 Primary Co-operative Societies including the Member Society. The election of Directors of the Bank could not be held up or postponed if any one of the aforesaid 42 Primary Societies, which were its members, had failed to elect one of its members to represent it at the time of the said election. True, according to clause (xi) of bye-law 36 of the Bye-laws of the Member Society, its manager was authorised to convene meetings. But then bye-law 32 of the Bye-laws of the Member Society provides that if he (the manager) fails to convene a meeting, any four of the appellants could send a requisition to him (the manager) to call the meeting. On his (the manager's) failure to call such a meeting, the appellants could refer the matter to the Registrar or any one authorised in that behalf. There is nothing to show that the appellants had ever made any requisition to the manager of the Member Society to convene a meeting to elect a representative of them to represent at the time of election of the Directors of the Bank in the June or July, 1974. It appears that for the first time they made a requisition to the manager to call such a meeting on August 3, 1974, at a late stage, may be on Ist of August, 1974. The said requisition was received by the Assistant Registrar on August 2, 1974 and the same was forwarded by him to the Deputy Registrar, who was competent to grant permission to call a meeting at a short notice. It was received in the office of the Deputy Registrar at 4.30 P.M. on August 2, 1974, and he happened to be on leave on that day. On the said state of things, I do not think that the blame for not convening meeting to elect a representative from the appellants to represent the Member Society at the time of election of the Directors of the Bank, in the month of June or July, 1974, i.e., well in time before the date of election of the Directors of the Bank, cannot be thrown upon the manager of the Member Society. The appellants, as shown above, cannot absolve themselves of the fault in the matte of not convening such a meeting before the receipt of intimation of the election programme of the Directors of the Bank. Their failure to elect one of them to represent the Member Society at the time of election of the Director of the Bank at a meeting convened for the purpose well in time, i.e., in the month of June or July, 1974, cannot, in my opinion, be a ground for complaining that intimation of the programme relating to the election of the Directors of the Bank was not received by the Member Society earlier to July 19, 1974. Proviso to rule 10 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Rules, 1963, provides that a copy of resolution, duly attested, of the Co-operative Societies authorising one of its members to represent it at the election of the Directors of the Bank should reach the manager of the Bank at least 4 days before the date of polling. Since the appointed date for the election of the Directors of the Bank was August 12, 1974, the copy of the resolution of the Member Society, authorising one of the appellants to participate in the aforesaid election, could reach the Manager of the Bank on or before August 7, 1974. The intimation, however, required the Member Society to send information respecting the representative who was authorised to participate in the election of the Director of the Bank to reach the Manager on August 4, 1974. Therefore, Mr. Kuldip Singh made a grouse that the appellants had been prejudiced because they were required to send copy of the resolution, whereby one of the appellants was to be elected to represent the Member Society at the time of election of the Directors of the Bank, earlier, i.e., 3 days before August 7, 1974. Here too, I do not find any force in his grouse. Firstly, the Member Society had not passed any resolution electing any one of the appellants to represent it at the time of election of the Directors of the Bank. Therefore, the question of sending any copy of the resolution, authorising one of the appellants to represent the Member Society at the aforesaid election, does not arise. The intimation received by the Member Society required it (the Member Society) to send information about its representative on August 4, 1974, but it did not debar it to send such an information after the said date till August 7, 1974. It is not the case of the appellants that any such information about the election was taken to any authorised person of the Bank on August 7, 1974, or on any date after August 4, 1974, much less that such person had declined to receive the same. It, thus, follows that the second contention of Mr. Kuldip Singh is also devoid of any force and the same is overruled. For the foregoing reasons, I find that the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing Civil Writ No. 4221 of 1974 and this appeal is bereft of any merit. The question raised by Shri Manjit Singh Khaira, who is counsel for Shri Joginder Singh and another in Civil Writ No. 4859 of 1974, who was allowed to intervene on his application, that Joginder Singh, who had been elected to represent the Sultanpur Primary Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank Ltd., Sultanpur, in the election of the Directors of the Bank was not allowed to participate because intimation in that respect had been received by the Bank on August 5, 1974, i.e., one day after August 4, 1974, is not involved in the case which is subject of this Letters Patent Appeal. Therefore, the effect of the said denial to Joginder Singh to participate in the election of the Directors of the Bank has not been considered in deciding this appeal and he (Joginder Singh) is allowed to urge the said point in Civil Writ No. 4859 of 1974 before the Bench hearing the same. Consequently, I maintaining the judgment of the learned Single Judge, dismiss this appeal. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.