JUDGMENT 1. These writ petitions arise out of common circumstances and common questions of law and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner belongs to the economically weaker section of the society and had no house in his, or in her name, or in the name of her husband, or his wife or minor children. In pursuance of an advertisement issued by the respondent, the Society invited applications from the persons belonging to the economically weaker sections of the society and the lower income group who were interested in having a house. The petitioners applied and deposited a sum of Rs. 500/-. The petitioners received a letter from respondent No. 1 that 225 houses are being constructed and they will be allotted by lottery and the persons whose names appear in the lottery will have to become a member of the Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti and the estimated cost of the proposed house was Rs. 29,500/-. The petitioners were allotted house after the lottery and became members of the Bhakrota Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. The Chief Minister, while inaugurating Phase-II, on 14-11-1981, announced that the cost of the houses will be about Rs. 30,000/-. In the news paper "Anima" dated 28-2-1983, also, the cost of construction of the houses was shown to be Rs. 30,000/-. The petitioners received the allotment letter dated 20-4-1983, informing that they have been allotted house in the Scheme. The cost-sheet giving break-up of cost of construction of the house amounting to Rs. 43,903/- was also sent to the petitioners. The petitioners and other allottees made representations to the various authorities that the Society could not increase the price of the house: but so far no result. Therefore, he ultimately gave a notice of demand of justice on 10/5/1983, and then filed the present writ petition on 11/5/1983. 3. When the writ petitions came up for admission, Mr. G.C. Mathur put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 1 and sought time to file a reply. Replies to the writ petitions have already been filed by respondent No. 1. Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties were heard. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has raised preliminary objection bout the maintainability of the writ petitions. G.C. Mathur put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 1 and sought time to file a reply. Replies to the writ petitions have already been filed by respondent No. 1. Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties were heard. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has raised preliminary objection bout the maintainability of the writ petitions. He has submitted that no writ can be issued against the respondents as it does not come within the definition of "State" or "other authorities" as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, secondly, that there is an alternative remedy under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, and without exhausting the same the petitioner is not entitled to file this writ petition. Thirdly, he has submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to raise his grievance directly against the respondent Society. Respondent Society does not deal with the individual members, but only a primary society. He has further submitted that it is a matter of contract and there is no compulsion that the petitioner should take possession of the constructed house. If he feels that the amount is more, he can very well give up his claim. On merits, it has been submitted that because of several reasons mentioned in para No. 12 of the reply, the society had to actually incur more expenses and, therefore, the prices have increased. The petitioners have submitted rejoiner to the reply filed by the respondents. Both the learned counsel for the parties have relied on the latest authority of this Court. Hira Lal v. Railway Shramik Sahakari Bank Bikaner Ltd. (1983 RLR 220) , in which several authorities of the various High Courts and the Supreme Court have been discussed. After a detailed discussion, it has been observed as under:- "It cannot be said that every society regi1 red under the Co-operative Societies Act is not amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Similarly, it cannot be said that every society is amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Similarly, it cannot be said that every society is amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. If the society is registered under the Co-operative Societies Act and it is financed mainly or wholly by the State Government, it is controlled by the officers of the State Government in the administrative capacity or by the persons nominated by the State Government in their administrative capacities, then, definitely the case may be made out that the society is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India." 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted in his rejoinder that bye-laws of the society provide that the Society has been formed "to under- take as an agent of the Government work of the Financial Housing Society and allied activities under scheme which have been or may be sponsored by the Government." The State Government has made contribution towards the share capital and maximum capital has been invested by the Government of Rajasthan. The over-all control, including the financial and administrative control of the Society is of the Government. The Government of Rajasthan has appointed four Government servants as its four directors and no elections have been held so far. Therefore, keeping in view the observations of this Court in Hira Lal v. Railway Shramik Sahakati Bank Bikaner Ltd. (Supra), I find that there is no force in the preliminary objection raised by the respondent that the respondent society is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court, as in my view the respondent does fall within the definition of the "State", or "other authorities" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 6. Similarly, the other preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the writ petitions that the respondent Society does not deal with the individual members and only deals with the primary society and, therefore, the petitioners have no locus standi to file this writ petition against the respondent Society, is without any force. The notice inviting applications (Annex. 1) was issued by the respondent Society (Annex. 2) and the allotment letter has also been issued by the respondent society directly to the petitioner. Similarly, the other preliminary objection that the petitioner has an alternate remedy under section 75 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, is also without force. The notice inviting applications (Annex. 1) was issued by the respondent Society (Annex. 2) and the allotment letter has also been issued by the respondent society directly to the petitioner. Similarly, the other preliminary objection that the petitioner has an alternate remedy under section 75 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, is also without force. Section 75 of the Act provides that if any dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a cooperative society arise, the dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision and no court shall have jurisdiction entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such society. In my opinion the present dispute raised by the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of Sec Lion 75. Moreover, Section 75 cannot debar the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this court. 7. The only point which remains to be considered in these writ petition is as to whether the respondent Society can enhance the price of the construction of the house as will be evident from Annexure 1 and Annexure 2 that it was only an estimate of the construction of the house as given on 21/4/1981, and the prices of the material as well as the cost of construction have been rising every day and we cannot close our eyes that the cost of construction has been rising everyday. The Society has given details of the cost incurred in the construction of the houses and, in reply, has given the following reasons for the increase in the prices namely (a) they had to purchase extra land for the construction of roads, drainage etc; (b) the tenders were callcd much after 21/4/1981; (c) in the estimate the initial scheme, there was no provision for drainage which was considered necessary specially in the interests of the members of the society; (d) the Society had to pay conversion and sub-division charges which they earlier thought were not payable. It is also submitted that when the houses were ready, the Secretary of Society suggested some changes as mentioned in Annexure R/1, wherein it has been said that the above items may kindly be got executed and, if any, extra cost is incurred the same will be paid by the members. It is also submitted that when the houses were ready, the Secretary of Society suggested some changes as mentioned in Annexure R/1, wherein it has been said that the above items may kindly be got executed and, if any, extra cost is incurred the same will be paid by the members. Thereafter a formal re- solution was also passed by the members of the Bhankrota Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur and the respondent Society was requested to carry out the changes and alteration at their cost, which is amply clear vide Annexure R/2. In view of this, it cannot be said that the increase in price is either arbitrary or with some mala fide intention. It is not binding that the petitioner should purchase the house allotted to him. If he feels that the cost of construction is more, he can very well give up his claim and the house will be utilised for some other member of housing society. The petitioner has himself applied for allotment of a house in view of Annexure/l and it was only an estimate which was Published in Annexure A/2 and the mere statement of the Chief Minister or publication in some newspaper cannot bind down the Society and does not amount to promissory estoppel against the Society. 8. Therefore, I do not find any force in there writ petitions which are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. *******