V. D. GYANI, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks to challenge the respondent's action, in amending and enforcing bye-laws under Section 12 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and quashing of orders Anx. P. X, PXI and p. XII. ( 2 ) BY order dated 14-11-91, notices were directed to be issue to the respondents. The respondents have also filed the return ( 3 ) MAIN thrust of Shri Sethi argument was that no notice as contem plated by Section 12 of the Act was given by the respondents to the petitioners so as to enable them to submit their objections to the proposed amendment the procedure has not been followed and principles of natural justice have been violated. ( 4 ) THE respondents in their return have denied the allegations made bv the petitioners. . , ( 5 ) SBRI Yadav learned Govt. Advocate appearing for Respondent no 1 invited our attention to Anx. R/1 a receipt dated 4-7-90, passed by Asstt. Manager of the petitioner society, acknowledging receipt of show cause notice dated 1-7-91, issued by Respondent no. 1. ( 6 ) SHRI Sethi, learned Counsel for the petitioners however, referred to a document Anx. P. 8 dated 22-10-91, which is a letter addressed to the president of the Society by its Asstt. Manager informing him that the proposed bye-laws had not been received by him till then. Alongwith rejoinder filed on 9-1-92, the petitioners have filed original letter (Anx. P. 22) dated 21-10-91, addressed to the President, of the society by its Asstt. Manager informing the President that he had not received the proposed bye-laws nor had occasion to see them. It was the basis of these two documents Anx P 8 and Anx. P. 21, that it sirenuously urged that proposed amended bye-laws were not sent to the petitioners. ( 7 ) IT is significant 10 note in this connection that the Asstt Manager having passed a receipt Anx. P. 2 on acknowledging receipt of show cause notice on 4-7-91, has gratuitously come out with two letters (Anx. P. 8 and p. 22) informing the President that no communication was received from the respondent No. 1 in this connection. ( 8 ) FIRSTLY it was highly unnatural for an Asstt. Manager of Co-op. P. 2 on acknowledging receipt of show cause notice on 4-7-91, has gratuitously come out with two letters (Anx. P. 8 and p. 22) informing the President that no communication was received from the respondent No. 1 in this connection. ( 8 ) FIRSTLY it was highly unnatural for an Asstt. Manager of Co-op. Society to address such letters to its President, as very rightly argued by the learned Govt. Advocate these routine day-to-day matters or routine inquiries or qurries about official communications by the President to its Asstt. Secretary, are seldom if ever, entered in writing. It is nothing but a futile bid to create evidence in support of petitioners contention. It was also argued that an asstt. Manager is not competent or authorised under rules to receive any notice on behalf of the Society. ( 9 ) SECTION 12 of the Act contemplates notice to the Society while Rule 8 provides for service of notice. Shri Yadav, learned Govt. Advocate referring to society's resolution dated 22-6-90 (filed by the petitioners as Anx. P. 21), pointed out that the Resp. No. 2 was not allowed to function as Manager of the Society, and charge was given to the Asstt. Manager who had passed the receipt Anx. R. 2. The petitioners having filed letters Anx. P. 8 and Anx. P, 22, written by the Asstt. Manager in support of their contention that no notice as contemplated by Section 12 of the Act was received, cannot be allowed boil not and cold in the same breathe. ( 10 ) ANX. P. 4-a letter dated 22-7-91, addressed to the Respondent no. 1 by the President of the society, was also referred to. Reading this letter as it is, it would be clear, that the grievance was about the non-receipt of copy of proposed bye-laws and not the show-cause notice as such. The respondent no. 1 has placed on record the show cause notice dated 1-7-91, is served on the Society alongwith the proposed amended bye-laws its receipt by the Asstt manager Anx. P. 2. ( 11 ) IT is not the petitioners case, that they had filed any objections which the respondent did not consider at all before registering the amended bye-laws. 1 has placed on record the show cause notice dated 1-7-91, is served on the Society alongwith the proposed amended bye-laws its receipt by the Asstt manager Anx. P. 2. ( 11 ) IT is not the petitioners case, that they had filed any objections which the respondent did not consider at all before registering the amended bye-laws. ( 12 ) THERE is ample material on record to hold that notice as contemplated section 12 of the Act in fact was given to the Society, and it is the petitioners who in order to wriggle out of the situation have created evidence to show that no notice was given, to them, nor copies of the proposed bye-laws supplied such a practice needs to be deprecated. ( 13 ) WE need not to go into the question of politically motivated action as there is no factual material to substantiate this allegation. ( 14 ) FOR the foregoing reasons this petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed with costs Counsel fee Rs. 1000/- (one thousand ). Petition dismissed. .