JUDGMENT 1. 1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the stay application. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a petition was filed in the court of Addl. Munisif and Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur, which was subsequently withdrawn. This petition was filed in the name of Anand Bhawan Nirman Sahkari Samiti and was signed by Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, Secretary. A writ petition was filed by Ramesh Kumar as Secretary of Anand Bhawan Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. which was registered as SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4423/92 and was dismissed on July 30, 1992. Thereafter, a fresh writ petition has been filed by Purshottam Sharma, Treasurer of the Society and the above society has been made as one of the respondents. An ex-parte stay was granted to the petitioner on August 5, 1992, where in the Election Officer was directed to hold elections in accordance with law and the respondent No. 6 was directed to assist the Election Officer in holding the elections. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has alleged that the dispute is on account of the fact that the Society has a scheme for Amoroodwala Bag, which is a prestigious scheme and some decision has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in favour of the Society and that on 6th June, 1992 Shri Phool Chand Doodi, Joint Registrar, Cooperative Society called Shri Hanuman Sharma, Vice President of the Society at his residence in the morning hours and told him that it has been decided in the meeting at high level that an Administrator should be appointed by superseding the Election Committee of the Society. It is alleged that it was further informed that in case the society is willing to spend something then he may reconsider the matter. Shri Hanuman Sharma told that he will reply tomorrow and went away. Shri Hanuman Sahai discussed this matter with the petitioner who was the Treasurer of the Society. Thereafter an enquiry was made by the petitioner and it was found that no meeting at any level was held to appoint the Administrator and therefore, they decided to meet the Registrar next day. On 7th June, 1992 Shri Hanuman Sahai went to the residence of Joint Registrar and at that time Shri Om Prakash Nagar S/o Shri Chaturbhuj Sharma, Minister for Cooperative Department and Shri Raj Kumar Pandya were sitting with the Joint Registrar. On 7th June, 1992 Shri Hanuman Sahai went to the residence of Joint Registrar and at that time Shri Om Prakash Nagar S/o Shri Chaturbhuj Sharma, Minister for Cooperative Department and Shri Raj Kumar Pandya were sitting with the Joint Registrar. It is alleged that Shri Phool Chand Doodi, Joint Registrar told Hanuman Sahai that in case the Society is able to pay Rs. 10 Lacs and seven plots in Amrood Wala Bag, the Administrator will not be appointed and elections will be allowed to be held. Shri Hanuman Sahai told that the demand is very high. It is alleged that the Joint Registrar informed him that he will have one plot for the Joint Registrar at Jaipur, Shri M. L. Jain one Plot for Additional Registrar Shri S. P. Gupta, one for Deputy Registrar Shri Mahender Singh and 4 plots will be divided between himself and the Minister. With regard to the cash amount, he told that 2 lacs will be paid to the Deputy Registrar Shri Mahender Singh Rathore and 8 lacs is to be divided between himself and the Minister. Shri Hanuman Sahai told that this is too much, but the Joint Registrar stated that this is not much and when this scheme is approved they will pay more. It is alleged that on this Shri Hanuman Sahai told that if they can give guarantee for the approval of the scheme, then the proposal can be considered, but the Joint Registrar insisted on payment of money and plots. Shri Doodi made it clear to Shri Hanuman Sahai that they will not allow to hold the elections and the Administrator will be appointed. Shri Hanuman Sahai came back and narrated the entire incident to the petitioner and other members of the society and it was decided that the Society will face the situation, instead of yielding to the illegal demands. 4. It is stated that thereafter on 15.6.1992, the Inspector of Cooperative Society came to the office of the Society and told the members of the society that they may talk to Shri Mahender Singh Rathore at his residence, but since the view of the officials was well known, therefore, it was decided not to meet him. On 16.6.1992, Shri Mahender Singh Rathore Deputy Registrar gave a telephone call to Shri Hanuman Sahai and called him at his office. On 16.6.1992, Shri Mahender Singh Rathore Deputy Registrar gave a telephone call to Shri Hanuman Sahai and called him at his office. Shri Hanuman Sahai went to the office of Deputy Registrar Shri Mahender Singh and Shri Mahender Singh told to Hanuman Sahai Sharma that amount of Rs. 2 lacs should be sent to him otherwise, he will appoint Administrator and that he is not concerned with Minister or other Officer. Then Shri Hanuman Sahai Sharma came back and discussed the matter with the petitioner and others and it was decided that since elections are going to be held soon, they should not yield to the demands of Deputy Registrar. It is submitted that in these circumstances Administrator was appointed on 17th June, 1992. It has also been submitted that Shri Rambabu Parmar who is appointed as Administrator is a very close man of Shri Chaturbhuj Verma, Minister for Cooperative Department and he has been appointed by the Minister malafidely and has openly demanded Rs. 20,000/-. He can be seen with the Minister most of the time in a day instead of his office. 5. Affidavits of Shri Chaturbhuj Verma and Shri Om Prakash Nagar have been filed, wherein all allegations made against them have been denied. Respondents No.1 to 3 have also denied the allegations made against them. 6. Before dealing with other matters as raised by the learned counsel the parties, I would observe that whether the petitioner has any legal right in respect of the land of Amrood Wala Bag or not and whether any decision has been given by the Supreme Court in their favour or not, is not a subject matter of dispute in this writ petition and cannot be decided and the petitioner also cannot be allowed to allege something, which is not a subject matter of dispute and in the garb of this petition, the title in respect of the said land cannot at all be decided. Regarding the allegations of demanding money and plots, I may observe that though the said allegations have been denied by the respondents and this court cannot adjudicate such type of disputed questions of fact. A question has arisen as to whether in such a manner any person can make the allegations against the authorities in the manner as has been done in this case. All these allegations have been submitted by the petitioner on affidavit. A question has arisen as to whether in such a manner any person can make the allegations against the authorities in the manner as has been done in this case. All these allegations have been submitted by the petitioner on affidavit. If the allegations are false, then action has to be taken against the petitioner for filing false affidavit and, therefore, I consider it proper to direct that the Deputy Registrar High Court may end a copy of this order to the Director General of Police, who shall appoint an Officer not below the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police, C.I.C. Branch to make investigation in the matter. The appointment of the officer shall be made within a period of 30 days from today and the said officer shall complete enquiry within a period of one month thereafter. A copy of the report shall be submitted to this court so that necessary action in accordance with law may be taken thereon and the writ petition may also be disposed of on the basis of the said report. 7. From the various averments which have been made including the submissions as made above by the petitioner, it appears that the Society is not discharging its functions as Cooperative Societies and few of the persons are having hold on the society and in the garb of the name of the society, business of trading of land is being carried on by them. It is on account of failure of the audit department of the respondents as well as the officers of the Income Tax Department that in a case where they can lift the veil of the Society under the garb of which the individuals carry on their business, even the due tax is not being paid. It is on account of improper legislation on behalf of the Government that neither the needy persons are getting lands nor such lands are being allotted keeping in view any criteria and on papers it appears that the business of the society is on 'no profit no loss', but in fact the position is not so. It is on account of improper legislation on behalf of the Government that neither the needy persons are getting lands nor such lands are being allotted keeping in view any criteria and on papers it appears that the business of the society is on 'no profit no loss', but in fact the position is not so. Even the allegations which have been made of demanding money and plots and the admission of the petitioner that the said amount was on higher side so that had it been on the lower side, perhaps the petitioner through their Vice President would have fulfilled the desire of the Officers. In a 'no profit no loss' society from where the money can come in. They are not expected to have any money. The persons have to purchase the land of a particular scheme on a price and get it approved and after development, effect sale thereof. The purchase price and the expenses (which should be genuine) should be the only price of the plots to be allotted to the members. The schemes should have been examined by the audit/assessing authorities individually to find out as to whether the said land has been distributed actually on 'no profit and no loss' basis. By some appropriate legislation, the provisions should have been there in a manner so that any arbitrariness on the part of the society could be avoided in the allotment of lands to any member or to change the plot of land at the whim of the office bearers of the Society. It is on account of non-taking effective steps by the Jaipur Development Authority that a person has to go for purchase of unapproved land from the society. The Legislation even could have been atleast for future that the land will be provided by the Jaipur Development Authority to the genuine societies who fulfil the norms in respect of the requirements, which may be fixed by the J.D.A. and that societies construct houses and provide the same to the members. The preference should have been for the smaller societies having smaller number of members so that the very purpose of the cooperative movement is encouraged. The societies which are having office bearers, they may be closely related to each other and may even try to have the control over the society on their election so that they may continue the business. The societies which are having office bearers, they may be closely related to each other and may even try to have the control over the society on their election so that they may continue the business. This is not the intention of cooperative movement. The persons who are otherwise engaged in other business and the cooperative society is not a source of income for them, could only be genuine office bearers. All these factors, and like others are being completely ignored while administering the business of a cooperative society which is on no profit no loss basis. The term of the society expired on 6th January, 1992 and the various office bearers have already completed the term for a period of 3 years. The election is a sign of democratic system and cannot be denied for any reason. It has been submitted that vide order dated 16.11.1991, the Assistant Registrar, Shri Kamlesh Kumar Gupta (now Deputy Registrar) was appointed as Election Officer and the list of the members was submitted by the society to him on 20.2.1992 and the election programme had already been fixed by the said Election Officer vide Annexure-6. The respondents have submitted that the document Annexure-6 is a forged document. There had been a long correspondence with regard to the submission of correct and complete list in accordance with rules and it is alleged that it is on account of non-furnishing of information the administrator was appointed and the said Administrator has already taken the charge. The preparation of the final list and to hold election in accordance with law is the duty of the Election Officer and the veracity of the list has to be made from the receipt register, registers and documents of the society. In the present case it is alleged that the list was not submitted in the prescribed form and that the membership number and other details are missing and the society has not cooperated in providing information for conducting elections. 8. The submission of Mr. In the present case it is alleged that the list was not submitted in the prescribed form and that the membership number and other details are missing and the society has not cooperated in providing information for conducting elections. 8. The submission of Mr. Bhandari is that the suspension of the elected body is a serious matter and it was the duty of the Election Officer to prepare the list and that the similar societies where the period has already lapsed of 3 years, neither administrator has been appointed nor such step as has been taken in the case of the petitioner, has been taken and that the Administrator could have been appointed by the State Government and not by the Deputy Registrar. The apprehension has also been shown that the Administrator may dispose of unsold plots and may utilise or misutilise the money lying in the bank affecting the assets of more than a crore of rupees. This matter shall be considered while disposing of writ petition. 9. I have not been able to understand that how in a society which is working on no profit no loss basis the assets of crorers of rupees can be accumulated. This could be either by way of loan, which is not given normally to such type of societies or it could be by way of allotment the money given by the members, in that case the plots should have been allotted to them. The membership of the society is said to be 400 (which is still a subject matter of verification), the amount of membership from these members could not be more than 4 Lacs. If the land has been purchased and the amount has not been paid to the sellers of such land then also there could be assets with the society but no seller would like to defer the payment from such a society, which is said to be so solvent. All these arguments, which are contradictory in itself and against the very theory of the cooperative movement and no profit no loss basis shows that there is some-thing which the society intend to hide. All these arguments, which are contradictory in itself and against the very theory of the cooperative movement and no profit no loss basis shows that there is some-thing which the society intend to hide. In these circumstances, it is directed that the Administrator who has already taken the charge shall immediately (not later than 20 days) get the election process started by providing the necessary information to the Election Officer after taking the documents from the office bearers of the society. He shall not take part in purchase or sale, allotment, transfer or otherwise of any land or plot thereof. Even the amount, which is lying in the bank shall remain seized till a newly independent elected body takes charge. 10. The result of the above discussion is that the ex-parte stay order dated 5th August, 1992 is vacated. A copy of this order may also be sent to the Jaipur Development Authority and the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. The stay application stands disposed of accordingly.Stay order vacated. *******