JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is a registered cooperative society registered under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, here in after called the 'Act' having its head office at Bharatpur District Head Quarters. The case of the petitioner is that it is a multi unit cooperative society and in the matter of enquiry into its constitution, dissolution etc. it is amendable to the jurisdiction of the Central Registrar and not to the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Bharatpur hereinafter referred to as the Assistant registrar. It is alleged the petitioner society had money account with Bharatpur Central Cooperative Bank & Punjab National Bank, Bharatpur branch. In Bharatpur Central Cooperative Bank Rs. 86516.02 stood as credit in favour of the petitioner society & in the Punjab National Bank Rs. 834201/- were lying credit in its account. The Assistant Registrar under the pressure of same influential persons mala-fide issued order purporting to act under section 70 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act on 3rd May, 1972 for enquiry into its constitution working and financial condition as the police had embarked enquiry as to the genuineness of the society & further that there were so many rumours afloat against its genuiness. By that order the Assistant Registrar appointed Shri Krishanpal Singh as enquiry officer to go into the working and the financial condition of the said society. In the said order there was an endorsement at No. 6 directing the Central Cooperative Bank Bharatpur & the Punjab National bank branch Bharatpur not to encash cheques of the petitioner society till the same were counter-signed by the Assistant Registrar. This direction as per the endorsement was issued with a view to safeguard the finances of the society during the pendency of the enquiry under section 70 or until further orders to the contrary. The above order was not received by the petitioner till 5th of May, 1972, when it received an intimation from the Manager of the Bharatpur Central Bank Ltd. dated 8th of May, 1972 whereby the Bank informed that it has been directed by the Assistant Registrar not to encash the cheques of the petitioner unless they are counter-signed by him. The above order was not received by the petitioner till 5th of May, 1972, when it received an intimation from the Manager of the Bharatpur Central Bank Ltd. dated 8th of May, 1972 whereby the Bank informed that it has been directed by the Assistant Registrar not to encash the cheques of the petitioner unless they are counter-signed by him. On coming to know of the aforesaid directions from the aforesaid letter the petitioner society by a telegram asked the Assistant Registrar to send the copies of order dated 3rd May, which was later on received by the petitioner on 16th May, 1972 from the office of the Assistant Registrar. This letter is marked Ex. 2. The petitioner society having felt aggrieved against the said order filed a writ petition which along with the stay application came up for admission before this court on 25.5.1972. On 25.5.1972 the court admitted the writ petition. The Deputy Government Advocate on the same day accepted notice of the writ as well as the stay petition and the case was listed for orders on 29.5.1972. The case ultimately came up for orders on 12.6.1972. On that day the reply was filed by the Government wherein it was averred that the enquiry officer has been appointed to embark upon the enquiry under section 70 of the Act for inquiring into the constitution, working and the financial condition of the petitioner society and that the enquiry officer has submitted his report on 16.5.1972. It was further averred in the reply that on the report of the enquiry officer the Assistant Registrar has taken proceedings under section 78 of the Act and issued notice to the petitioner for making representation. The notice was apparently of 15 days but date was fixed in it as 6.6.72 for reply to the notice. It is further stated in the petition that the notice was affixed on 26.5.1972 at the Registered Office of the petitioner. on 6.6.1972 the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Society Bharatpur passed the order for winding up on 6.6.1972. Vide Ex. R/7 and appointed the officer of the Cooperative Department as liquidator of the society. It is further stated in the petition that the notice was affixed on 26.5.1972 at the Registered Office of the petitioner. on 6.6.1972 the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Society Bharatpur passed the order for winding up on 6.6.1972. Vide Ex. R/7 and appointed the officer of the Cooperative Department as liquidator of the society. As the order of winding up and the appointment of the liquidator had taken place subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the petitioner subsequently amended the writ petition narrating all the facts and prayed for quashing of the orders dated 3.5.1972 and 6.6.1972 which are the impugned orders before me. These orders are being challenged on the following grounds: (1) That the petitioner society is a multi unit cooperative society and the Assistant Registrar, Bharatpur had no jurisdiction to take proceedings under section 70 or 78 of the Act. (2) That in the alternative if the Registrar is held competent to direct enquiry under section 70 of the Act the enquiry is vitiated as no notice was given by the enquiry officer. (3) That notice under section 78 was not received by the petitioner as it was affixed on the office which was closed office even within the knowledge of the Assistant Registrar himself and, therefore, the affixture of notice on the premises of the head office was no notice at all. Even the notice did not give adequate opportunity as it was too short to enable the petitioner to have it so. On these grounds the petitioner prayed that the impugned orders may be quashed. 2. The reply was filed to the original unamended writ petition but no reply was filed in time to the amended writ application. Subsequently this court allowed the non-petitioner to file the reply on payment of Rs. 750/- as cost. The non-petitioner did not make payment of Rs. 750/- and therefore, the reply which was filed by it without complying with the condition imposed by this court was ordered not to be looked into. 3. In the reply to the unamended petition non-petitioners have refused the claim of the petitioner and inter-alia alleged that Mr. 750/- as cost. The non-petitioner did not make payment of Rs. 750/- and therefore, the reply which was filed by it without complying with the condition imposed by this court was ordered not to be looked into. 3. In the reply to the unamended petition non-petitioners have refused the claim of the petitioner and inter-alia alleged that Mr. H.C. Kumar has no locus standi to file this writ petition as parentage given by him in the writ petition is different from the one given out in the record of the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Bharatpur, that the petitioner society had framed its bye laws in contravention of the Act; that the Assistant Registrar had jurisdiction to make enquiry under section 70 of the Act; that the enquiry Officer had inquired into the constitution, working and financial condition of the society and had submitted his report whereupon a notice under section 78 of the Act was issued to the Chairman which was issued on 25.5.1972 for affording opportunity to the society to make representation but as no one appeared as required in the said notice Ex. R/3 the Assistant Registrar ordered for winding up the society and appointed liquidator by his order dated 6.6.1972.It was further averred that that the Assistant Registrar had jurisdiction to initiate enquiry and take proceedings under section 78 of the Act as in the advertisement issued by it for attracting the share holders, the petitioner had indulged in misrepresenting facts viz., that the society in question will manufacture the scooters instead of assembling them, that the Apolo Scooters would be an improved version of Vespa scooters and that the society in question is a Udhyog of a public sector. It is alleged that all these averments were deliberate misrepresentation to the share holders in order to atttract the capital. It was ruther alleged in the prospects issued by the society that the Praja Shakari Udhyog Bharatpur Limited is a Udhyog of a public sector. This averment is a misrepresentation to convey wrong impression that the society is an 'Udhyog of public sector having Government participation therein. It was ruther alleged in the prospects issued by the society that the Praja Shakari Udhyog Bharatpur Limited is a Udhyog of a public sector. This averment is a misrepresentation to convey wrong impression that the society is an 'Udhyog of public sector having Government participation therein. It has also been alleged that the Government by its letter dated 9th June, 1972, had cautioned the public against subscribing to the share capital of the society and had also notified the public that the petitioner has not been granted any industrial licence by the Government of India to the manufacture of scooters nor permitted the State Government to set up a unit in medium or its small scale sector and that due to the doubtful activities of the petitioner society the State Government has ordered police investigation. It has further been submitted in the reply that the society got printed two sets of bye-laws. In the bye-laws submitted to the Registrar the area of the operation of the society was mentioned as Bharatpur District Head quarters, where in the other set of the bye-laws the area of operation was printed as India-wise, although no amendments in area of operation had been registered by the Registrar Cooperative Society Jaipur as will appear from Ex. R/5, 10.5.1972. The non-petitioners have further alleged that the registered office of the society has been shown to be situated in Rajbahadur Nagar, New Industrial Area, Bharatpur, where as no such Nagar exists which is clear from the letter of the Executive Officer, Municipal Board vide Ex. R/6 and Ex. R/7. It has also been alleged that the doubt was raised by several respectable citizens of the genuineness of the society and therefore the Government desired to make immediate enquiry into the genuineness of the society on the report of one Mohanlal son of Deriayamal resident of Bharatpur dated 3.5.1972 lodged in the police station Kotwali, Bharatpur. It has been also alleged that the money deposited in the Banks relates to the case No. 64/72 under section 420 IPC as the same was obtained after committing cheating and fraud. The Assistant Registrar was well within his jurisdiction to direct the Banks not to make payments. It has been also alleged that the money deposited in the Banks relates to the case No. 64/72 under section 420 IPC as the same was obtained after committing cheating and fraud. The Assistant Registrar was well within his jurisdiction to direct the Banks not to make payments. Particular of fraud given by the non-petitioners is that in the bye-laws which were registered with the Assistant Registrar the area of operation was shown as Bharatpur District Head quarters while in the printed bye-laws the area of operation was fraudulently shown as Bharatpur District and All India wise without legal amendment in the area of operation. Beside this the non-petitioner have contended that no positive steps to set up any scooter industry in Bharatpur had been taken by the petitioner and the so called Chairman has fraudulently given a wrong name of his father. Another fraudulent act imputed in the reply of the non-petitioner is that the application signed by all the 17 persons, the promotors of the society showed themselves to be the Registrar seeking registration of the cooperative Society and certificate of resident from the Chairman Municipal Board, Bharatpur was also fraudulently obtained from the Chairman, Municipal Board Bharatpur who is alleged to be interested as his wife was amongst one of the 17 promotors and on investigation it has been subsequently found that the certificate has been falsely obtained as many as 14 persons including the Chairman Harish Kumar were not resident of Bharatpur. It was also alleged that the promotors members did not give their full and complete addresses at the time of registration in the column meant for residence and address. Besides this the non petitioner has supported the impugned orders and prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Mr. M.M. Vyas contended that the impugned orders are without jurisdiction and also against the elementary principles of natural justice on the following grounds:- (a) That the petitioner society is a multi unit cooperative society and the Asst. Registrar had no jurisdiction over such society. (b) That in the alternative the Assistant Registrar had initiated proceedings u/s 70 of the Act without giving any notice to the petitioner thereby causing serious prejudice to them. (c) That the inquiry report of the Assistant Registrar under section 70 of the Act was not at all furnished to the petitioner. Registrar had no jurisdiction over such society. (b) That in the alternative the Assistant Registrar had initiated proceedings u/s 70 of the Act without giving any notice to the petitioner thereby causing serious prejudice to them. (c) That the inquiry report of the Assistant Registrar under section 70 of the Act was not at all furnished to the petitioner. (d) That the petitioner was not afforded adequate opportunity of being heard in the proceedings under section 78 of the Act as no notice was served upon it and at any rate the notice even if assumed to have been issued was wholly inadequate to put in a reasonable defence. 5. The objection as to the locus standi of H.C. Kumar has no merit in it. Mere difference in parentage as alleged is not sufficient to hold that Shri Kumar is not the Chairman of the Society. The mistake in the parentage as explained in the rejoinder appears to be on account of inadvertance. 6. The question that emerges for consideration is whether the petitioner society is a Multi Unit Cooperative society. A multi unit cooperative society is one, the object of which is not confined to one State but spread beyond the limits of one State. In this connection the learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the bye-laws. Clauses (b) and (p) of para (4) of the bye-laws may be carefully extracted for ready reference. (b) to construct godown in the place of manufacture/assembling as well as in other places in India and abroad for storage and sale of the products or to acquire godowns, buildings show room on rent/lease basis. (p) to open adequate number of branches, sales depots etc any where in India or abroad to meet the convenience of the business of the Udhyog in accordance with the resolutions of the Board of Managements." From clause (b) it will appear that the cooperative society under the bye-laws was competent to construct godowns at the place of manufacturing and also at other places in India and abroad for storage and sale. 7. Clause (p) of para (4) of the bye-laws authorises the society to open adequate number of branches sale depots in India or abroad. 7. Clause (p) of para (4) of the bye-laws authorises the society to open adequate number of branches sale depots in India or abroad. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner these clauses clearly indicate that the object of the society was not confined to one State but to States through out in the territory of India. Dr. Tiwari in the first instance attempted to meet this argument by saying that the society was multi unit society but was registered by the Assistant Registrar, Bharatpur therefore; it was not a validly registered society & was not incorporated in a valid manner and consequently it was not competent legal entity to initiate any legal proceedings. This argument has no force as under section 3 of the Multi Unit Cooperative Societies Act, 1942, the registering authority in respect of such societies is also the registering authority in the particular State in which the society is registered. It was next argued by Dr. Tiwari that the society had not actually spread its activities beyond the State, and therefore, it cannot be taken to be a multi unit cooperative society. This argument is also of no substance. From the sub-clauses extracted from the bye-laws it is clear that the society's objects are extending beyond the state and that is the only requirement of section 3 of the Multi Unit Cooperative Societies Act. Actual spreading of activities in pursuance of its object is not a sine qua non for holding it to be a multi unit cooperative. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the petitioner society is a multi unit cooperative society. 8. Once it is held that it is a multi unit society then under sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, 1942, the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies is to exercise in respect of any multi unit cooperative society, powers and functions exercisable by the Registrars of the Cooperative Societies of the State in which such society is actually registered. It necessarily therefore follows that the powers exercisable by the Central Registrar are equated with the powers exercised by the Registrar of Rajasthan by virtue of this provision. It necessarily therefore follows that the powers exercisable by the Central Registrar are equated with the powers exercised by the Registrar of Rajasthan by virtue of this provision. It may however, be mentioned here that the Joint Secretary in charge of the Cooperatives in the Ministry of Agriculture Government of India has been appointed as the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies under S.R.O. 114 dated 29.12.56 published in Gazette of India of 1957 Part II Section 8 page 65. Further by another notification of the same date S.O.R. 115 published in the same Gazette the powers as to enquiry in the matter of constitution, dissolution have been delegated to the Registrar of the States in which the multi unit cooperative society is registered. by virtue of this notification it is obvious that the Registrar alone who has been delegated powers was competent to initiate action either under section 70 or under section 78 of the Act. Dr. Tiwari, however,tries to to come over the difficulty by urging that the Registrar had delegated all his powers to Assistant Registrars, therefore the Asst. Registrar was competent. It is true that the Assistant Registrar has been delegated the powers by the Registrar under Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, but it is difficult to concede to the contention of Dr. Tiwari that the Registrar who is a delegate to the Central Registrar under the Multi Unit Cooperative Societies Act is competent to delegate further powers in favour of the Assistant Registrar. The position of law is that the powers delegated to an authority under a statute are to be exercised by the delegate himself and the same cannot be further sub delegated in favour of another person. 9. The Assistant Registrar, therefore, has no jurisdiction to inquire into the constitution, working and financial condition of the society under section 70 nor he was competent to pass an order winding up the society and appoint a liquidator. These orders, will have, therefore, to be quashed. 10. In view of this finding I need not decide other contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. 11. It is of course apparent that the writ petition succeeds on technical ground of want of jurisdiction on, the part of the Assistant Registrar. These orders, will have, therefore, to be quashed. 10. In view of this finding I need not decide other contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. 11. It is of course apparent that the writ petition succeeds on technical ground of want of jurisdiction on, the part of the Assistant Registrar. There are serious allegations as to fraud, misrepresentation and other like matter and the learned Deputy Government Advocate has submitted for putting certain safeguards, against the immediate withdrawal of the money. Mr. Kumar has given in writing that he was prepared to give fidelity guarantee of a reputable insurance company for rupees two lacs which will be kept by the petitioner in running account and the rest of the money will be kept in a separate account No. 2 which he will not operate until the amount in account number one has been spent and interim audit report of the Chartered Accountant has been submitted in order to ensure correct spending and accounting of the money. It has been further said that the fidelity guarantee will be in favour of Punjab National Bank and the amount in deposit with Bharatpur Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Bharatpur will be transferred directly to the petitioner society. This court sitting in its extra ordinary jurisdiction has power to devise safe guards against the immediate withdrawal of money looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. In the result the writ petition is accepted, the impugned orders dated 3.5.72 & 6.6.72 are hereby quashed but in the circumstances of this case in the interests of justice the petitioner shall give the fidelity guarantee as proposed in his application dated 18.1.74. He shall also not be allowed to withdraw the money until the expiry of the period of one month from the date of this order and further if it has not been seized or prohibited to be withdrawn in any other case. Further the order shall not debar the competent authority to take appropriate action in exercise of its power conferred upon it by a statute. In the facts and circumstances of this case the parties are left to bear their own costs. *******