R. D. VYAS, J. ( 1 ) ORDER on this application shall be passed along with final order. The case is heard finally with the consent of the counsels. This L. P, A. is directed againts the judgment and order dated 21. 3. 94 of learned Single Judge, passed in M. P. No. 794/93, whereby a direction has been issued that the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, Bhopal, or any responsible officer nominated by him not being respondent no. 2 shall examine and make appropriate enquiry in regard to the representation (Annexure P 12 application for demand of justice ). ( 2 ) IT has further been directed that the inquiry shall be completed within 3 months, and till shen the transfer of plots shall remain stayed. ( 3 ) IT has also been observed that if the inquiry is not completed within the stipulated period, the petitioner or any other member of the sanstha shall be free to approach the authorities or the court as the case may be. ( 4 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that while making a direction, learned Single Judge has not made it clear that inquiry will be done according to the provisions laid down under the cooperative Societies Aet as the petitioner himself is a member of the cooperative Society, which is alloting plots for constructing houses to its members. ( 5 ) IT has further been submitted that if the transfer of plots are stayed, the whole working of the society will come to a halt. ( 6 ) AS against this, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 has submitted that they shall comply with the direction given by the court ( 7 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for respondent nos 5 to 19 is that firstly there was a consent order and as such no appeal lies. Secondly the officer appointed under the Cooperative Societies and posted at Indore, are colluding with the appellant (here) and therefore, he has no faith on the inquiry being made by them. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has further raised certain questions of facts regarding the forgery in membership, wrong allotment of plots, undervaluation of plots, and taking of illegal gratification while transferring plots. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has further raised certain questions of facts regarding the forgery in membership, wrong allotment of plots, undervaluation of plots, and taking of illegal gratification while transferring plots. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has also submitted that concession was made before the Single Judge by the counsel; now petitioner has resiled the same and therefore he should be prosecuted. ( 10 ) SO for as the point regarding forgery in the registration of membership, mis-appropriation of money, illegal gratification and under-valuation of plots is concerned, those are matters of controversial facts, as has been observation by the learned Single Judge also. Therefore, it would not be proper to make any comment as to that. ( 11 ) NOW, so far as the direction for inquiry is concerned, learned single Judge has prohibited the inquiry by respondent no. 2, who is the joint Registrar under Cooperative Societies Act. There are officers, and assistant Registrars, other than Registrars of Cooperative Societies. Joiut registrar is a senior officer and therefore, any inquiry which is to be made, where allegation against Joint Registrar has also been made, shall have to be made by the officer of equal rank or higher ranks and not by the persons of lower ranks. ( 12 ) ENQUIRY under the Coops. Act would mean as per provisions of the unless it is wholly executive in nature. In our opinion, therefore, the order requires further elucidation. We therefore, modify the order as follows : the Registrar shall himself or by an officer appointed by his, who may not below the rank of Joint Registrar or as far as possible senior to Joint Registrar respondent no 2 in petition No. 794/93. ( 13 ) SHRI Johari is r Joint Registrar and is shown as respondent no. 2 in M. P. 794/93. The petitioner io that petition (now respondent no. 5)has made allegations against him. ( 14 ) IN our opinion therefore, he shall not be competent to make inquiry himself and the inquiry shall have to be made by an officer senior to him ( 15 ) THE inquiries shall be completed within 4 months from today. The petitioner io that petition (now respondent no. 5)has made allegations against him. ( 14 ) IN our opinion therefore, he shall not be competent to make inquiry himself and the inquiry shall have to be made by an officer senior to him ( 15 ) THE inquiries shall be completed within 4 months from today. If any extention of time required, same shall be obtained from this court ( 16 ) SOCIETIES shall not transfer the plots to persons who are not members and transfer to members shall also be made in accordance with serial number and in chronological order, and if there is any dispute as to the date of membership of a particular person, the same shall be raised before the Additional Registrar, in charge of the inquiry. ( 17 ) IF the society transfers the plot during the pendency of the inquiry, they shall inform the Additional Registrar in charge of the inquiry showing the membership, and the transfer and if possible notice to the same shall also be given to the petitioner in Petition No. MP 794/93, and the plots shall not be transferred without permission of Additional Registrar, in charge of the Inquiry. ( 18 ) NOW, so far as prayer for prosecution is concerned, we do not deem it fit to allow the prayer. We have perused para 9 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge. What has been written is that when a prayer or direction for inquiry was made, Shri Samvatsar, counsel for respondent' who was appearing for the party, did not offer any appugnation. This doesent amount to clear admission. This would only amount to tacit consent, and a person cannot be prosecuted only for that reason. ( 19 ) IT is an established principle of law that the prosecuted should be directed by the court only, when there is a reasonable certainty of conviction. If the observation has been made on the basis of probabilities of facts by taking a tacit consent for keeping mum, it cannot be said that the same shall end in conviction without certainty. In such a situation, it would not be proper to directed for prosecution of the petitioner here. Prayer for prosecution is therefore rejected. L. P. A. is disposed of as such. Parties shall bear their own costs. Prayer rejected. .