M. V. TAMASKAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a contempt petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of India by the applicant for punishing the contemner and passing appropriate orders. The petitioner is a Cooperative Housing Society duly registered under the provisions of the M. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The members of the Society claim to be landless persons. The Society had applied to the State Government for allotment of land. Sometime in the year 1984-85, the society registered its members. The members purchased shares in the Society and their deposits were accepted towards the cost of the plot to be allotted. The Society has framed its own bye-laws which have been approved by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies. ( 2 ) IT appears that there has been a history of litigation. This contempt petition came to be filed in the following circumstances. The Society had applied to the State Government in the year 1982 seeking allotment of 16. 50 acres of land located in Arera Colony, Bhopal. By order, dated 11-8-1982, the Govt. reserved 13 acres of land for allotment to the Society and by order, dated 22-9-1982, the Govt. directed the advance possession of 13 acres of land to be given to the Society on certain conditions. The society was required to deposit premium amount and one year's rent within sixty days and was further required to submit a list of members along with their affidavits before taking possession. The Society deposited rs. 1965726. 85 by different treasury challans on or before 26-9-1982 towards the Nazul rent and premium. The Society was delivered possession of about 566280 sq. ft. of land of Khasra No. 299/82/2 on 11-10-1982. The society had prepared the lay out according to which different sizes of plots carved out and sanctioned by the Town and Country Planning Department, Bhopal. While the society was in the process of making allotment, it appears that some complaints were made' against the functioning of the society. The deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies had initiated action against the society for handing over the charge of the society. The order of the Dy. Registrar Cooperative Societies, which was challenged by the petitioner/applicant before this Court in Misc. Petition No. 1269/83. During the pendency of the petition, the State Government by order dated 2-6-1983 revoked the allotment order. The deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies had initiated action against the society for handing over the charge of the society. The order of the Dy. Registrar Cooperative Societies, which was challenged by the petitioner/applicant before this Court in Misc. Petition No. 1269/83. During the pendency of the petition, the State Government by order dated 2-6-1983 revoked the allotment order. This Court quashed the order dated 2-6-83 of revocation of allotment and directed an enquiry by giving an opportunity of hearing to the Society into the allegations of breach of the terms and conditions of the allotment order. It appears, thereafter a show cause notice, dated 20-12-1985, was issued to the Society against the cancellation of the order of allotment, to which a reply was filed. By order, dated 16-1-1986, the State Government cancelled the allotment order, dated 22-9-1982. This order of the State Government dated 16-1-1986 was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in Misc. Petition No. 326 of 1986. A Division Bench of this Court while deciding the aforesaid petition observed in para 4 as follows :"the more important aspect is whether the Society intends to allot land to those amongst the membrrs, who are not eligible to obtain the land. The eligibility criteria is strict, namely intending members shall not have either site or building anywhere in the state. "the petition was disposed of with certain directions as are incorporated in para 5 of the order and quoted below :"the impugned order Annexure-U dated 16-1-1986 is set aside subject to the following conditions : (i) The Registrar of Cooperative Societies shall personally verify the eligibility of members of the petitioner society for obtaining allotment of land from the Society and prepare a list of members who are eligible and furnish the list to the society. (ii) The Society shall allot land only to those members who are found eligible by the Registrar. (iii) The members who are found to be ineligible by the Registrar shall be entitled tomake representations to the Registrar within one month from the date on which copy of the list of eligible members is furnished to the Society and thereupon the Registrar shall give an opportunity of hearing to them and take final decision in the matter. (iii) The members who are found to be ineligible by the Registrar shall be entitled tomake representations to the Registrar within one month from the date on which copy of the list of eligible members is furnished to the Society and thereupon the Registrar shall give an opportunity of hearing to them and take final decision in the matter. (iv) After finalishing the matter as aforesaid, the extent of land necessary for allotment to eligible members shall be reckoned and the land necessary for development activities and for surrender the Government for allotment to weaker sections of the population shall be calculated and the excess of land shall be surrendered to the Government and the Government shall refund proportionate premium paid by the Society. (v) After the finalisation of the list of eligible members and subject to the terms and conditions of the earlier orders of the Government, the parties shall enter into a lease deed. The matter shall be finalised by the Registrar within six months from today. The first list of eligible members shall be supplied by the Registrar to the society within three months from today. Representations of members who are found ineligible shall be disposed of by the Registrar within one month from the date of receipt of the representations. " ( 3 ) UNDER the said directions the Registrar of Cooperative Societies was directed to verify the eligibility of the members of the petitioner/society and it was held that after finalisation of the membership the extent of land necessary for allotment to eligible members was to be reckoned and the land necessary for development activities and to surrender the rest; if it was found in excess, It was also said that the Government shall refund proportionate premium. It was directed that after finalisation of the eligibility the party shall enter into lease deed. The Registrar was directed to decide the matter within six months. The list was to be submitted to the society within three months from the date of the order and representation of the members found ineligible was required to be disposed of by the Registrar within one month. The eligibility criteria was to be verified on the basis of affidavit to be filed by the members. After the said directions have given, the Registrar did not complete. The eligibility criteria was to be verified on the basis of affidavit to be filed by the members. After the said directions have given, the Registrar did not complete. The enquiry as directed, hence, M. C. C. No. 336/9s was filed which was decided on 10-8-94. By order dated 2-5-94 the Registrar submitted a report that none of the members was qualified. However, the said order was passed without affording any opportunity to the members. The Court, therefore, directed that each of the members should be given separate notice. A perusal of the directions issued by the Division Bench as contained in para 5 (i) will show that the main emphasis of the enquiry is upon the eligibility of the members of the petitioner/society for obtaining allotment of land from the society. ( 4 ) IT was alleged by the petitioner that the Registrar did not comply with the directions of the High Court, referred to above, and complete the enquiry as directed. The petitioner filed a Contempt Petition, being M. C. C. No. 336 of 1994, in which the present contemners were also impleaded. By order dated 10-5-1994 notice was issued to the Contemners. A reply in the contempt Petition appears to have been filed. According to which the contemners claimed to have passed an order, dated 2-5-1994, within the stipulated period of three months holding that none of the members were found to be eligible. When the contempt petition came to be heard on 20-7-94 by Mr. Justice I. P. Rao, the following order was passed by him :"the detailed note sheet, however, shows that as many as 174 members have paid for the land and also submitted the affidavits prior to 19-4-1991. It is also found that in the cabinet precis, dated 19-4-91, the members who had submitted those affidavits were declared landless. The note-sheet does not show that any notices were issued at least to these 174 members either personally or through the petitioner society. I, therefore, feel that it is necessary to direct the 4th Respondent i. e. Shri Ranveer Singh, registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bhopal to appear in the Court to satisfy the court about not issuing notices at least to these 174 members who were declared eligible by virtue of Cabinet precis, dated 19-4-1991. "thereafter the matter was heard by Hon'ble Justice N. P, Singh on 10-8-1994. "thereafter the matter was heard by Hon'ble Justice N. P, Singh on 10-8-1994. It was observed by him that the Registrar complied with the order of the court on 2-5-94 by passing the order within the stipulated period of 3 months and as such no case of contempt was made out and the contempt petition was disposed of. Inspite of this, the Court passed the following order :"however, the Registrar is directed to review his order, dated 2-5-1994 and find out whether any member of the society is eligible for allotment of the land or not. The enquiry must be completed within three months from today. " ( 5 ) A reading of both the orders, dated 20-7-94 and 10-8-94 of this court in M C. C. No. 336/94 leaves no room of doubt that the Registrar was required to issue show cause notices to the members to afford them opportunity of hearing before declaring them ineligible to obtain the allotment of the land. ( 6 ) IT appears that after the earlier contempt petition was disposed of on 10-8-94, the Registrar wrote a letter, dated 22-8-94 to the President of the society informing that he has to examine the eligibility of the members to obtain allotment of the land and for which purpose affidavits are to be submitted as on the date of 10-8-94. The Registrar enclosed a proforma of the affidavit requiring all the members should swear the affidavit before the deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bhopal, and as such affidavits should be despatched to the Registrar by Registered A. D. by 22-9-94. The aforesaid letter was replied by the President of the Society vide letter, dated 24-8-94 and the petitioner objected to the demand of affidavits in the newly prescribed proforma on the ground that as per the bye-laws of the Society, the several informations and particulars ought to be elicited on oath in the affidavit are irrelevant. According to the petitioner the members were only required to declare on oath that he or any of his near relatives (father, mother, dependent brother, dependant sister or children) does not own a resideqtial plot in the city in which the Cooperative Society exist. No person will be allotted. The society requested for return of the Membership Register. According to the petitioner the members were only required to declare on oath that he or any of his near relatives (father, mother, dependent brother, dependant sister or children) does not own a resideqtial plot in the city in which the Cooperative Society exist. No person will be allotted. The society requested for return of the Membership Register. On the same lines the petitioner also submitted a detailed objection petition, dated 30-8-1994 before the Registrar, particularly objecting to the new proforma of affidavit. The petitioner apprehended that by calling for several unnecessary informations, the Registrar had tried to circumvent the order of the High Court and convert a limited enquiry directed by the High Court into the eligibility of the members to obtain allotment of the land to an enqairy into the membership of the members The Registrar by his reply, dated 31-8-1994 to the objection petition, dated 30-8-94 informed that the affidavits sought by his office are necessary for his satisfaction and for conducting full and proper enquiry and that he is also competent to scek information in this regard under the M. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1969. By letter, dated 27-10-1994 the President of the Society requested the registrar of the Societies to examine the 240 affidavits of the members submitted before him which according to the petitioner had also been examined by the State Government in the Department of Revenue and 204 members were found eligible for allotment of the land according to Cabinet Precis, dated 19-4-1991. By letter dated 7th November, 1994, the President of the society informed the Registrar that the list of the members and the affidavits had been produced by him on 28-2-1994 and the information called for by the Registrar, vide letter, dated 22-4-1994 had also been submitted by the society on 29-4-1994 and 30-4-1994. According to the Society. Smt. Joshi, Joint Registrar and Shri Chauhan, deputy Registrar alongwith their term had also physically verified the original records. The President of the Society complained that none of the members had been issued notice for hearing and requested that till such time the members were properly heard by issuing notice, no order regarding eligibility of the members should be passed. Smt. Joshi, Joint Registrar and Shri Chauhan, deputy Registrar alongwith their term had also physically verified the original records. The President of the Society complained that none of the members had been issued notice for hearing and requested that till such time the members were properly heard by issuing notice, no order regarding eligibility of the members should be passed. ( 7 ) BY memorandum, dated 6-10-1994, the President of the Society was required to submit the original record of the society which include interalia the original application of each member ; the affidavits' submitted by each member alongwith his application ; the copy of the receipt of the application of the member; the receipt issued by the society of deposit of the membership fee and the receipt issued by the Society of deposit of minimum fixed share money and several other informations, which would show tha t the Registrar mainly wanted to examine the correctness and eligibility of the membership of the members. This memorandum was replied by the petitioner vide letter dated 12-10-1994 asserting that the entire original records have been submitted and personally verified by Smt. Joshi, Joint Registrar and Shri Chauhan, Deputy registrar. The President of the Society accused the Registrar of deliberately delaying the enquiry by calling irrelevant informations. The petitioner/society finally served a notice, dated 18-7-1994 requesting to comply with the orders of the Division Bench dated 4-2-94 and execute the sale deed. ( 8 ) THE petitioner complains that inspite of the aforesaid letters and notice, the order of the High Court was not complied with, which led to filing of the present Contempt Petition. In this contempt petition notices were issued to the Respondents, In response to which reply on behalf of the respondent No. 1 has been filed. According to the said reply, neither the president of the Society nor any member supplied the information in the prescribed proforma, except 16 members. It is averred that the Registrar was not in a position to decide the matter of eligibility, without inspecting for himself the original records. It has further been stated that in compliance with the directions of the court and all the materials before him, the Registrar has passed an order dated 8-11-1994. It is averred that the Registrar was not in a position to decide the matter of eligibility, without inspecting for himself the original records. It has further been stated that in compliance with the directions of the court and all the materials before him, the Registrar has passed an order dated 8-11-1994. According to him, the affidavits of sixteen members were examined and they were not found eligible for allotment because the validity of their membership could not be examined, Likewise, the eligibility of rest of the members also could not be examined properly for the same reason and that the answering respondents had no option but to hold that the remaining members of the society are also not eligible for allotment of the land. The order of the Registrar dated 8-11-1994 has been annexed alongwith the reply. ( 9 ) THE petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the reply. The petitioner has relied upon the Cabinet Pracis, dated 14-9-1991 prepared by the Society. Revenue Department of the State Government, which mentions interalia that the affidavits of 204 persons members of the society were received which upon examination reveal that all the dependents are homeless and landless persons. An additional return has also been filed by the Respondent No. 1 in which the entire history of the litigation has been given. Moreover, the respondents have tried to justify their insistence for supply of information on the newly prescribed proforma of affidavit. ( 10 ) AT the time of hearing Shri Ranveer Singh, the contemner No. 1, was directed to be personally present. Although, the Additional Advocate general initially appeared. The Registrar expressed that he would himself argue his ca'se and not the Additional Advocate General. However, this court gave him full opportunity of hearing and heard him at great length. ( 11 ) THE contention of the petitioner is that the Registrar has totally misdirected himself in making the enquiry. It has been vehemently argued that the Registrar has wilfully circumvented the order of the Division Bench dated 3-2-1994 by repeatedly holdidg that none of the members of the Society are eligible for allotment of the land. It is also argued that the Registrar has committed contempt of the crder, dated 20-7-1994 and 10-8-1994 by not issuing notices to the members personally to give them an opportunity ef hearing. It is also argued that the Registrar has committed contempt of the crder, dated 20-7-1994 and 10-8-1994 by not issuing notices to the members personally to give them an opportunity ef hearing. The membership Registrar, affidavits as required by the bye-laws of the society, the list of members, the list of amounts paid by the members were all submitted by the Society to the Registrar, which were not taken into account on lame excuses. It has been contended that the Registrar instead of conducting a limited enquiry as directed by the Division Bench of this Court regarding eligibility of the members to obtain allotment of land in accordance with the bye-laws of the society has unwarrantedly and deliberately entered into an enquiry into the membership which was not germane to carrying out the directions issued by the Court. The Registrar has interpreted the order of the Court mere in a manner to arrogate the powers to himself to decide the validity of membership, than to hold enquiry, into eligibility without keeping in view the long pendency of the matter right from the year 1982 and deprived the members of their lawful right to obtain plots. ( 12 ) AT the outset I may mention about the impression which was sought to be created upon me by the Registrar during his submissions, namely that he was required to do something extraordinary pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 3-2-1994. When he was pointedly asked whether similar proforma affidavit has been prescribed for any other society in the State and why the affidavits already furnished by the members were not considered, the registrar replied that this being a special case, he has worked out the affidavit himself, since according to him the detailed informations asked for in the affidavit were necessary for completing the enquiry. He attempted to justify the contents of the affidavit by reading various sections of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. While, there is no doubt that the Registrar has put in enormous industry in preparing the proforma affidavit but in my opinion the same was not at all necessary and is wholly misconceived in view of the limited scope of enquiry envisaged under the orders of the Division Bench dated 3-2-1994. While, there is no doubt that the Registrar has put in enormous industry in preparing the proforma affidavit but in my opinion the same was not at all necessary and is wholly misconceived in view of the limited scope of enquiry envisaged under the orders of the Division Bench dated 3-2-1994. The Registrar had failed to appreciate that the enquiry directed was only with regard to the eligibility of the members for obtaining allotment of land which must necessarily be confined to the condition of eligibility prescribed in bye-law No. 5 of the Society and explained in paragraph 4 of the order of the High Court, namely whether intending members have either site or building anywhere in the State. In other words, whether they are homeless and landless persons. For completing this enquiry, surely all the meticulous information required in the proforma affidavit by the Registrar were unnecessary and it would only lead to unnecessary dilation of the enquiry. It is indeed surprising that a senior and experienced officer of the State Government would find it difficult to draw this distinction, which is clear enough. I had scrutinised the 240 affidavits produced in the Court by the Registrar in his presence during the course of hearing. Those affidavits contain, necessary particulars and declaration in so far as legality criteria is concerned. The 16 affidavits which were submitted pursuant to the notice of the Registrar in the prescribed format and have not been accepted by the Registrar in his order, dated 8-11-94 were also scrutinised by me. In my opinion, the rejection of the 16 affidavits is also arbitrary and irrational inasmuch as the affidavits have not been accepted for such reasons and grounds which are trivial and superfluous. Moreover, the Registrar inspite of clear indication in the order, dated, 20-7-94, and direction, dated 10-8-94, to review the earlier order dated 2-5-94 did not issue personal notices to the members to afford them an opportunity of hearing. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I have no hesitation in holding that the Registrar has conducted himself in a manner which only shows his over enthuiasm and undue interestness in the matter completely misdirecting the enquiry. His approach was certainly not fair and reasonable but on the contrary utterly hostile, towards petitioner/society. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I have no hesitation in holding that the Registrar has conducted himself in a manner which only shows his over enthuiasm and undue interestness in the matter completely misdirecting the enquiry. His approach was certainly not fair and reasonable but on the contrary utterly hostile, towards petitioner/society. ( 13 ) A reference may be made to para 6 of the return filed by the respondent No. 1 wherein he stated as under :"that the Hon'ble High Court had merely directed the Answering respondent to review his earlier order. The manner in which it was to be reviewed was not specified. The Answering Res pondent, therefore, had to device the procedure for ascertaining the fact. With that in view he prepared a proforma in which the information was to be supplied on affidavit. Such prescribed proforma have already been enclosed by the petitioner. "at this stage it would be convenient to refer the bye-law prescribed by the society and which has been approved by the Registrar long back even before this controversy arised. The applicants/petitioners have filed affidavit before this Court submitting a list of documents which were audited and inspected by the officers of the Cooperative Department, details of which are given below :"that the annexed document i. e. Annual Income and expenditure statement for the year 1992-1993 and 1993-94 and description of records for court inspection. " ( 14 ) IT may be stated that against the order passed by the High Court in M. P. No. 326/86 the State Government had preferred a Special Leave petition, which was dismissed summarily without notice to the other side. Thus, the directions in the above matter had to be complied with. The registrar seems to be of the opinion that it is open for him to scrutinise the whole record with minutest details of date of enrolment, resolutions passed, the money paid, the amount of share holding and the amount of cost of the land or the instalments paid towards the cost. Since this whole material was before the Registrar duly audited, no further information was necessary. ( 15 ) THE order (Annexure-R/d-4) which has been filed by the Registrar makes an interesting reading. He has rejected the claim of members on the ground that the President of the society has not submitted the information, sought by him. Since this whole material was before the Registrar duly audited, no further information was necessary. ( 15 ) THE order (Annexure-R/d-4) which has been filed by the Registrar makes an interesting reading. He has rejected the claim of members on the ground that the President of the society has not submitted the information, sought by him. He arrogated to himself the right to determine the eligibility criteria for himself and not to decide the eligibility criteria on the basis of the bye laws of the Society. As already stated the proforma affidavit submitted by him called for unnecessary details and each member could not have individually replied Moreover, the affidavits which were ordinarily sworn in before the authority prescribed were ignored as they were not sworn in before the deputy Registrar as directed by him in his memorandum. ( 16 ) NOW the question is whether the Registrar has committed contempt of the orders of this Court. In view of the facls stated above, it has already been held that the scope of enquiry entrusted to the Registrar by this Court was limited one and the Registrar has unduly entered into an enquiry into the legality of the membership of the members in a collateral manner. The rehistrar ought to have at least considered that these very members were found to be eligible by the State Government upon a scrutiny of their affidavits and other relevant records as per the precis prepared by the Secretary of the State Government, filed by the petitioners alongwith the rejoinder. The rejection of sixteen affidavits submitted by the members in the prescribed format of the Registrar clearly indicates that he did it with an pre-conceived mind to reject them. It is also noteworthy that inspite of clear observations of this Court in the order, dated 20-7-1994, the Rejoinder did not issue notices personally to all the members who were to be declared ineligible. I, therefore, find substance in the contention of the petitioner/society that the actions of the registrar have not been in accordance with the letter and spirit of the orders of this Court. However, the breach of the order to be punishable must be wilful co-act by the Registrar. It appears that the Registrar has acted according to his own peculiar notions about the meaning and scope of the orders of this Court. However, the breach of the order to be punishable must be wilful co-act by the Registrar. It appears that the Registrar has acted according to his own peculiar notions about the meaning and scope of the orders of this Court. May be the actions of the Registrar borders on the side of contempt, I think he deserves the benefit of doubt. ( 17 ) IN the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the Registrar, dated 8-11-1994, declaring that none of the members of the society are eligible for obtaining allotment of the land is neither a legal nor proper order, having been passed with closed mind. It is therefore, necessary that there should be a fresh enquiry to ascertain the eligibility of the members of the society. Since, the order was passed in Misc. Petition by a Division Bench, it is necessary, that the petitioner/society may approach the regular Bench for further directions in the matter. With these observations this petition is disposed of. Petition disposed of. .