Judgment N. M. KASLIWAL, J. ( 1 ) ACCORDING to the allegations made in the writ petition, the petitioner M/s. Praja Sahkari Udyog Bharatpur Ltd. , (hereinafter referred to as the Society) Is a Multi-Unit Co-operative Society which is governed under the Multi-Unit Co operative Societies Act, 1942 (hereinafter refrred to as the Central Act ). It was originally registered under the Rajasthan Cooperative societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Rajasthan Act) on 3-11-1971 vide registration No. 2079 and lateron sought an amendment vide resolutions passed in the general body meeting held on 29-11-1971, notice of which was served upon the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Ra jastban vide registry receipt No. 678, dated 7-12-1971 for seeking amendment for the adoption of Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 and rules made thereunder on the ground that the proposed principal place of business of the petitioner stands shifted from Bbaratpur to Launi (U. P. ). An order dated 3-5-1972 was issued for making an inquiry and thereafter liquidation order was issued on 6-6-1972. The petitioner filed a writ petition, which was decided in favour of the petitioner and whereby both the aforesaid orders were quashed and charge of the society was taken over by the then Chairman of the society from the so called liquidator. According to the petitioner the so called liquidator Shri K. S. Mathur, Inspector, Co-operative Department falsified the accounts and realised certain amount unlawfully and complaints to this effect were filed by the petitioner and in result thereof Shri k. S. Mathur was arrested by the Police and due to this reason the officers of the Co-operative Dept. were bent upon to take over the said falsified and forged accounts from the elected members of the Board of Management of the society in order to correct the wrongs. The respondent No. 7 Punjab national Bank, Branch Bharatpur also embezzled a sum of Rs. 551. 30 out of the cuirent account of the society in June. 1972 by making false entries and a complaint to this effect was also filed by the society, due to which the said respondent No. 7 also tried to avoid payments to the society for one reason or the other and did not obey the lawful instructions of the petitioner-society for the transfer of its account from Bharatpur Branch to Delhi Branch. The society also filed civil suit for damages amounting to Rs. 6. 80 crores in the civil Court at Jaipur as the working of the society was unlawfully stopped by the State of Rajasthan through is police and Co-operative Department and inspite of decision of the writ petition in favour of the society, by the High court on 25-1-1974. The S. H. O. Police Station Kotwali, Bbaratpur arranged once again to stop working of the society by order dated 1-2-1974 in the name of respondent No. 7 and directing the bankers of the society not to release money out of its own accounts. On account of such illegal action of the State of Rajasthan through its police department, the petitioner society has been put in such an embarrassing position that it could not pay the salary to its employees and also could not lefund the money to the members. The society as such filed another suit for damages amounting to Rs. 10 crores against the State of Rajasthan and the respondent no. 7 in the Civil Court at Jaipur. The society also moved a petition under section 482, Cr. P. C. against the orders of the S. H. O. Kotwali, Bharatpur dated 1-2-1974 and this Honble Court quashed the orders of the S. H. O. on 10-1-1979. ( 2 ) ON 9-1-1979 the State of Rajasthan through Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, bharatpur Zone, Bharatpur issued an illegal order purported to have been passed by the said Joint Registrar under the powers of the Central registrar, Co-operative Societies, New Delhi conferred upon him under the central Act and the same was handed over to Shri H. C. Kumar, the moment he came out of the court room on 10-1-1979. by this order dated 9th january, 1979 the Joint Registrar by virtue of powers vested in him under multi Unit Co-operative Societies Act, 1952 read with Section 36 of the rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act has removed the Board of Management of the society and appointed the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, bharatpur as its administrator. The Joint Registrar later passed an order on 11-9-1979 appointing technical Assistant to Joint Registrar, Co-operative societies, Bbaratpur Zone, Bharatpur as administrator of the society in place of the Assistant Registrar. The petitioner-society by this writ petition has challenged the aforesaid orders dated 9-1-1979 and 11-9-1979 passed by the joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bbaratpur Zone, Bharatpur. The Joint Registrar later passed an order on 11-9-1979 appointing technical Assistant to Joint Registrar, Co-operative societies, Bbaratpur Zone, Bharatpur as administrator of the society in place of the Assistant Registrar. The petitioner-society by this writ petition has challenged the aforesaid orders dated 9-1-1979 and 11-9-1979 passed by the joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bbaratpur Zone, Bharatpur. The main grounds of challenge are : that no prior notice was given to the society or its duly elected members of the Board of Management before passing the aforesaid orders as required under Section 36 of the Rajasthan Act. No consultation was ever made to the financing bank of the society as required under section 36 of the Rajasthan Act. The petitioner-society being an International level Multi-Unit Co-operative Society and to which Uttar Pradesh Cooperative societies Act, 1965 is applicable along with the Central Act, no order under Section 36 of the Rajastban Act could be passed in respect of the petitioner society. The impugned order dated 9-1-1979 relates to some praja Sahkari Udyog Bbaratpur Ltd. , Bbaratpur and not Praja Sahkari udyog Ltd. , Delhi and thus the order is bad in law. The earlier orders issued under the Rajasthan Act were quashed by the High Court in the earlier writ petition on 25-1-1974 and orders of the S. H O. Police Station, Kotwali, bharatpur dated 1-2-1974 were quashed by the High Court on 10-1-1979 has inspite of that the impugned order dated 9-1-1979 has been issued, which is in violation of the aforesaid order of the High Court dated 25-1-1974. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6 submitted reply to the writ petition. According to the stand taken by the aforesaid respondents, though learned single Judge of this Court in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1080/72 decided on 25th January, 1974 held that the society was a Multi-Unit Co-operative society, but this fact is under challerge in Special Appeal No. 67/74 pending against the decision of the learned Single Judge. The society was registered as an Industrial Society under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 and it was registered subject to the conditions laid down in the bye-laws as registered with the certificate of registration. The bye-laws registered with registration certificate were never amended nor any certificate for the amendment of bye-laws were ever issued. The society was registered as an Industrial Society under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 and it was registered subject to the conditions laid down in the bye-laws as registered with the certificate of registration. The bye-laws registered with registration certificate were never amended nor any certificate for the amendment of bye-laws were ever issued. The amendments sought by the petitioner society were not registered by the statutory authority under the Rajasthan Act for which a detailed procedure is contained under Section 13 of the Rajasthan act. The action for the adoption of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies act, 1965 and the rules made thereunder and shifting of its principal place of business from Bharatpur to Launi (U. P.) is in contravention of the Act and Rules and is denied. The proposed amendment as averred by the petitioner in para No. 2 of the writ petition was received by the Registrar, Cooperative societies, Rajasthan and the same were sent for comments to assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bharatpur and as the Assistant registrar, Bharatpur returned the papers by hand, to Shri H. C. Kumar who never produced the same to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rajasthan, no furthur action could be taken for the amendment of the bye-laws. It has been further averred that a case under Sections 420 and 468, I. P. C. was registered against Shri H. C. Kumar in which he was challenged. The charges have been framed in that case and trial is pending against Shri h. C. Kumar in a criminal court at Bharatpur. Shri H. C. Kumar filed a criminal Revision No. 252/79, against the order dated 1-8-1979 passed by the learned Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Bharatpur, but the same was rejected by the High Court on 5-11-1979 vide Annexure R/2. ( 4 ) IT is admitted by the respondents that an inquiry under Section 70 of the Rajasthan Act and Liquidation Order dated 6-6-1972 was issued by the assistant Registrar and the society filed a writ petition against the aforesaid orders in the High Court. The learned Single Judge in S. B. Civil Writ no. 1080/72 by order dated 25. 1. 1974 accepted the writ partially on technical ground and held, that the so called society was a Multi-Unit Co-operative society and as such the action taken by the Assistant Registrar was without jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge in S. B. Civil Writ no. 1080/72 by order dated 25. 1. 1974 accepted the writ partially on technical ground and held, that the so called society was a Multi-Unit Co-operative society and as such the action taken by the Assistant Registrar was without jurisdiction. The said judgment ot the learned Single Judge is under challenge in appeal before the Division Bench in D. B. Special Appeal no. 67\74. It is admitted that certain complaints were filed against Shri k. S. Mathur, Inspector, Co-operative Department, but no challan was filed against him. The filing of the suits in Civil Court at Jaipur are admitted but it is alleged that Shri H. C. Kumar is not persuing the cases and is playing the delaying tactics. It is further averred that vide order dated 25-1-1974 passed by the learned Single Judge, Shri H. C. Kumar was required to furnish fidelity guarantee to respondent No. 7. It is not known as to how the bank did not allow Shri Kumar to withdraw funds and operate the accounts. In the past Shr/ Kumar had designed means to withdraw the amount of rs. 2,19,767 by obtaining decrees and awards from various courts in collusion with his associates on the grounds of salary, honorarium, T. A. and D A. etc. The details of such decrees and awards have been given in para No. 7 of the reply. The order dated 9-1-1979 was issued and was served on Shri h. C. Kumar on 10-1-1979 at Jaipur, because he was avoidin service of the notices and other orders in a routine course, which is evident from the report on the file of D. B. Special Appeal No. 67/74. The photo-stat copy of application dated 22-11-1975 from the Government Advocate, Jodhpur has been annexed as R/3. ( 5 ) IT is also averred that under the registered bye-laws the office of the society is deemed to be situated at Bharatpur. The office of the society at delhi or Launi (U. P.) was never got registered nor the offices are situated at these places. The power to supersede the management of a co-operative society vests with the respondent No. 1 joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies bbaratpur in persuance of the Governmant of Indias notification dated 20th april, 1977, reproduced as below ;"no. The office of the society at delhi or Launi (U. P.) was never got registered nor the offices are situated at these places. The power to supersede the management of a co-operative society vests with the respondent No. 1 joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies bbaratpur in persuance of the Governmant of Indias notification dated 20th april, 1977, reproduced as below ;"no. L-11011/2/70-A and M. In exercise of the power conferred by section 58 of the Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies Act, 1942 (5 of 1942) the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in the notification of the Government of India in late ministry of Industry and Civil Supplies (Department of Civil supplies and Co-operation) No. 6 S. O. 775 dated the 30th january, 1976 namely : officers Multi-Unit Co-operate Societies. (ii) Jt. Registrar of All Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies which co-operative Societies,actually are or are deemed to be registerd Bharatpur. in Alwar, Bharatpur and Sawat Madhopur Districts of Rajasthan. " ( 6 ) I would first deal with the legal contentions raised by Shri h. C. Kumar who argued the petition himself. The petitioner-society cannot b3 termed as National Level Organisation. The Government of india is entitled to treat an Industry as a National Level Organisation by issuing a notification in this regard. In accordance with the notification dated 30th January, 1976 issued by the Government of India it has recognised only 14 co-operative societies in this category and in this notification the name of the petitioner society is not included. Thus I see no force in the contention of Shri Kumar that the petitioner-society should be treated as a national Level Organisation having international objects. ( 7 ) THE petitioner-society was admittedly registered as an Industrial society under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 and it was registered subject to the condition laid down in the bye-laws as registered wiih the certificate of registration Under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Act, no amendment of any bye-law of a Co-operative Society shall be valid unless such amendment has been registered or is deemed to be registered under this act and conditions under sub-section (2) are complied with. Sub-section (2)of Section 13 provides as under :"the Registrar shall forward to the society a copy of the registered amendment together with a certificate signed by him and such certificate shall be conclusive evidence that the amendment has been duly registered. Sub-section (2)of Section 13 provides as under :"the Registrar shall forward to the society a copy of the registered amendment together with a certificate signed by him and such certificate shall be conclusive evidence that the amendment has been duly registered. "under sub-section (4) of Section 13 where the Registrar refuses to register an amendment of the bye-laws of a co-operative society he shall communicate the order of refusal, together with the reasons therefor, to the society. Under sub-section (5) if the Registrar is unable to register the proposed amendment within the period of three months from the date of making the application for registration under Section 6, be shall forward the papers to the State Government along with his report stating the reasons therefor and for seeking extension and be shall thereafter act in accordance with such directions as may be issued to him by the State Government within two months. Though the petitioner in this regard has made an averment that it sought an amendment vide resolution passed in the general body meeting held on 29. 11. 1971, notice of which was served upon the Registrar of Cooperative societies for the State of Rajastban for seeking amendment for adoption of Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 and Rules made thereunder on the ground that the proposed principal place of business of the petitioner stands shifted from Bharatpur to Launi (U. P. ). But this fact is denied in toto by the respondents. According to them the bye-laws registered with registration certificate were neither amended nor any certificate for the amendment of bye-laws were ever issued Though it is admitted that the proposed amendment was received by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, rajasthan and the same were sent for comments to Assistant Registrar, Cooperative societies, Bharatpur and as the Assistant Registrar returned the papers by hand to Shri H. C. Kumar who never produced the same to the registrar, as such no further action could be taken for the amendment of the bye-laws. In the rejoinder the petitioner stated that "it was not at all admitted that the original papers were handed over to Shri H. C. Kumar by the office of the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, Bharatpur. In the rejoinder the petitioner stated that "it was not at all admitted that the original papers were handed over to Shri H. C. Kumar by the office of the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, Bharatpur. In fact a copy of the letter along with which the documents were sent to the registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Deputy Registrar industries, Co-operative Societies Rajasthan, Jaipur), a copy of which is enclosed herewith and marked Annexure p/2, was handed over to Shri h. C. Kumar, which was in the name of the petitioner-societies as is evident from the enclosed p/2. A receipt for the same was obtained by the clerk concerned". In reply to the rejoinder submitted on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 4, 5, and 6 it was again asserted that the contents of sub-para (2) of the rejoinder were dented. The answering respondents bad given detailed reply in the writ petition. However it was again asserted that the papers were handed over to Sbri H. C. Kumar. Thus it remains a matter of controversy whether the papers of proposed amendment remained with Shri h. C. Kumar or with the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rajastban. Be that as it may the fact remains that the amendment in the bye-laws was not registered nor a certificate in this regard signed by the Registrar was ever forwarded to the society as required under sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Rajastban Act. Admittedly the petitioner has not produced such certificate of registered amendment signed OF issued by the Registrar and in the absence of such certificate it cannot be believed that any amendment in the bye-laws was allowed. Thus the petitioner society being registered under the rajastban Co-operative Societies Act will be governed by the Rajasthan Cooperative societies Act only. It may be further pointed cut that under section 150 of the Rajasthan Act, no society can open a branch or a place of business outside the State of Rajasthan. The question thus of transferring the place of business of the society from Bharatpur to Launi (U. P.) is totally out of question. It may be further pointed cut that under section 150 of the Rajasthan Act, no society can open a branch or a place of business outside the State of Rajasthan. The question thus of transferring the place of business of the society from Bharatpur to Launi (U. P.) is totally out of question. That apart the petitioner has not placed a single iota of material on record to show that the society had in fact started its business at launi (U. P.) but on the other hand for its registered office even it has taken the stand that it had changed its office from Bharatpur to Delhi. On the other hand there is material on record to show that even letters which were sent to the society at Launi (U. P.) were returned undelivered. Thus I am in agreement with the contention of the respondents that the society never changed its place of business in fact as well as in law from Bbaratpur to launi (U. P.) and its mere ingenuity and device of Shri H. C. Kumar to escape from the hold of Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bharatpur who ia the only competent authority under the Rajasthan Co-operative societies Act to take action against the petitioner society. While deciding the contempt application No. 32/79 filed by the petitioner society, I have already decided that vide notification dated 20th April, 1977 the Central government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 (b) of the Multi unit Co-operative Societies Act, 1942 had made an amendment in S. O. No. 775, dated 30th January, 1976 whereby the Joint Registrar of the Co-operative societies, Bharatpur Division, Bharatpur has been empowered under the multi Unit Co-operative Societies Act. From the above notification It is clear that the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bharatpur Division, bharatpur has an authority to take action under Section 36 of the Rajasthan act The Joint Registrar has given detailed reasons for taking an action under Section 36 in bis order dated 9-1-1979. I sec no reason to hold that such order is without jurisdiction as contended by the petitioner or suffers from any illegality. Thus I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. I sec no reason to hold that such order is without jurisdiction as contended by the petitioner or suffers from any illegality. Thus I find no force in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. In the earlier writ petition No. 1080/72 decided on 25-1-1974, a view was taken that the petitioner-society was a Multi Unit Co-operative society and as such the impugned orders challenged in that writ petition could not have been issued under the Rajasthan Act. That infirmity has been subsequently removed by issuance of a notification dated 20th april, 1977 by the Central Government and the order dated 9-1-1979 now challenged can have no infirmity. ( 8 ) I also find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that an appeal against the order passed under Section 36 is provided under Clause (e) of sub-section (6) of Section 123 of the Rajasthan act, within 60 days from the date of such decision or order. The petitioner-society did not avail of such remedy and thus it has no right to challenge the order dated 9th January, 1979, passed under Section 36 on merits by invoking an extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the constitution. ( 9 ) I may also be observed, in the alternative, that Shri H. C. Kumar who has filed this writ petition styling himself as promoter member and presently General Manager as well as duly elected Director of the Board of management of M/s. Praja Sahkari Udyog Bharatpur Ltd. , against whom cases of 420 and 468, I. P. C. are pending with relation to his conduct with the management and affairs of the petitioner-society itself, cannot be considered a person competent to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. I do not want to make any comments on bis conduct as it may prejudice his case under Section 420 and 468,i. P. C. for which he is facing trial, but I am fully convinced that he is not at all a fit person in the facts and circumstances of this case, to take cudgels on behalf of the petitioner-society and to invoke extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. ( 10 ) IN the result this writ petition is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed. .