JUDGMENT : SUNIL AMBWANI, J. 1. A preliminary objection was taken by Shri. H.R. Misra that the Petitioner has also filed more than ten writ petitions in the matter, and that he is not entitled to any relief as he is absented himself from the society in an unauthorised manner since 16.1.1998, on account of which the answering Respondent rightly terminated Petitioner's services in accordance with bye law of the society. On these objections, Counsel for Petitioner was required to give the details of writ petitions filed by the Petitioner. After giving Counsel for Petitioner several adjournments, it is found that this is the 16th writ petition filed by the Petitioner in respect of same cause of action. It is a matter of concern for this Court that the Petitioner has not received a single judgment on merits so far. Almost all the writ petitions were either dismissed or disposed of summarily without considering the grievance of the Petitioner. No person however can be granted liberty to file repeated writ petitions and that the Rules of this Court prohibit filing of second petition for the same relief. Before considering the facts and submissions of the Counsels of the parties, the details of the earlier writ petitions and the orders passed therein must be stated. 2. The Petitioner was appointed on 25.7.1983 as Accountant by Committee of Management, Muzaffarnagar Paschimi Kisan Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd. (Primary Agricultural Credit Society registered under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965). It is alleged that by resolution No. 2 dated 26.11.1996 the Committee of Management proposed to appoint Petitioner as secretary of the Society on a vacancy going to be caused on the retirement of earlier cadre secretary Sri. Baleswar Dayal Sharma due to his superannuation on 31.3.1997. The resolution was sent to Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society, Meerut and that on 30.1.1997 it was alleged that Petitioner was appointed as Secretary and was directed to take over independent charge as Secretary and not in addition to his duties as Accountant. The Committee of Management informed the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society, U.P. Muzaffarnagar that the Petitioner has taken over charge. 3. The Co-operative Society was affiliated to Branch Navin Mandi Sthal of District Co-operative Bank and used to repay loans borrowed from the Bank. On 26.2.1994, the Bank had disclosed a credit of Rs. 48,434.89 towards the Society. The Committee of Management informed the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society, U.P. Muzaffarnagar that the Petitioner has taken over charge. 3. The Co-operative Society was affiliated to Branch Navin Mandi Sthal of District Co-operative Bank and used to repay loans borrowed from the Bank. On 26.2.1994, the Bank had disclosed a credit of Rs. 48,434.89 towards the Society. The Society denied that it had not borrowed the amount from the Bank. The Bank, however, withdrew the amount from the account of the Society. The auditor of the Co-operative Society found that this amount was illegal and unauthorisedly realised by the Bank and directed Society to recover the amount from the Bank. They also issued note of warning to the officers of the department. Various letters were sent by the Petitioner to refund the amount after which the Society passed a resolution dated 29.2.1997 authorising Petitioner as Secretary of the Society and filed Arbitration case against the Bank. It is alleged that the resolution was approved by the District Development Officer, Co-operative Societies and Arbitration case for recovery of Rs. 48,434.89 was filed on 13.11.1997. 4. In the year 1996-97, Rs. 65,970.00 was to be deposited by the Society as contribution to the District Primary Centralised Service Fund to obtain service of cadre secretary. It is alleged that the Society deposited only Rs. 48,438.00 because the cadre secretary had retired on 31.1.1997 and that no cadre secretary was appointed or transferred by the District Administrative Committee. The Member Secretary and the Chairman of the District Administrative Committee withdrew Rs. 65,970.00 from the Society and in this manner the Society claimed Rs. 40,433.00 from the Member Secretary and the Chairman of the District Administrative Committee. The amount was not refunded to the Society. The demand made by the Petitioner from the Member Secretary, District Administrative Committee made the member secretary hostile towards the Petitioner. A resolution was passed on 29.10.1997 by the Committee of Management authorising Petitioner to file Arbitration case against the Member Secretary and the Chairman of the District Administrative Committee. The District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative is the Member Secretary of the District Administrative Committee. 5. The Committee of Management, it is alleged passed resolution No. 6 dated 9.5.1997 whereby it requested Branch Manager, District Co-operative Bank, Muzaffarnagar to adjust Rs. 85,000 from the loan account of the Society. The District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative is the Member Secretary of the District Administrative Committee. 5. The Committee of Management, it is alleged passed resolution No. 6 dated 9.5.1997 whereby it requested Branch Manager, District Co-operative Bank, Muzaffarnagar to adjust Rs. 85,000 from the loan account of the Society. It is alleged that this request did not find favour with the Manager of the Bank and that the Society was forced to pay 18% interest on the loans granted to the Society by the Bank. Whereas it was getting 5% interest in the saving account. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society and the Manager, District Co-operative Bank joined together and that the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative transferred one Sri. Shushil Kumar Tyagi, Secretary/Managing Director of one another Co-operative Society as Secretary/Managing Director of the Society/Respondent No. 3 and directed him to take charge from the Petitioner. On 23.12.1997, the District Assistant Registrar passed an order charging Petitioner for misuse of Rs. 1,12,576.00 and also withdrew his powers to operate Bank account of the society. An enquiry committee was appointed against the Petitioner. Sri. Shushil Kumar Tyagi did not join duties. On 12.1.1998, the District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative passed an order modifying his order dated 19.12.1997 and directing the Assistant Development Officer, Co-operative to take charge of the Co-operative Society. On 12.1.1998, the Committee of Management passed resolution No. 2 to challenge the order of District Assistant Registrar dated 23.12.1995. A Writ Petition No. 388 of 1998 was filed through the Vice-President of the Society which was dismissed on 3.2.1998. 6. On 12.1.1998, the Committee of Management of the Society passed resolution No. 6 concerning the illegal adjustment and defalcation of the District Assistant Registrar and the District Co-operative Bank for Rs. 40,833 and Rs. 48,435 and for not adjusting Rs. 85,000 towards loan taken by the Society and also charging them to level false allegations against the Petitioner for misuse of Rs. 1,12,576 and decided to engage a lawyer to take legal action against them in Court. It is contended that on 16.1.1998 the Petitioner came to Allahabad to consult the High Court lawyer to file writ petition and when he returned, he found that Sri. Shushil Kumar Tyagi had taken over charge of the Co-operative Society. 1,12,576 and decided to engage a lawyer to take legal action against them in Court. It is contended that on 16.1.1998 the Petitioner came to Allahabad to consult the High Court lawyer to file writ petition and when he returned, he found that Sri. Shushil Kumar Tyagi had taken over charge of the Co-operative Society. In February, 1998, the tenure of the elected Committee of Management came to an end and that the District Assistant Registrar directed the Society to hold elections. On 18.3.1998, the Assistant Development Officer, Co-operative wrote a letter to the Petitioner alleging that some enquiry has been held against the Petitioner by the Additional District Co-operative Officer, who had held Petitioner guilty of misappropriation of some amount. It is contended that the Petitioner was not informed about the enquiry and that from the document available he found that the Committee of three members including the Additional District Co-operative Officer, Assistant Development Officer and Sri. Sushil Kumar Tyagi cadre secretary held ex-parte enquiry against him to victimize him on the instruction of the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society. 7. The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 5715 of 1998 (1st writ petition) to quash the order dated 23.10.1998 and 13.1.1998 of the Assistant Registrar directing that the charge be taken over from the Petitioner and for cancelling his persons to operate the Bank accounts. The writ petition was dismissed on 14.2.1998. 8. In Writ Petition No. 16538 of 1998 (2nd writ petition), the Petitioner challenged the order dated 18.3.1998 passed by District Assistant Development Officer directing Petitioner to deposit the so called embezzled money. This writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to file an Arbitration case u/s 70 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. 9. The Writ Petition No. 37085 of 1998 (3rd writ petition) was filed by Petitioner with a prayer to direct the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative District Muzaffarnagar to declare result of the enquiry against him to misuse of Rs. 1,12,576. The Petitioner had also made representations concerning this charge with the District Magistrate and Assistant Registrar. This third writ petition, was decided on 7.12.1998 directing the Assistant Registrar to decide the representation. It is contended that by his order dated 17.2.1998, the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies exonerated Petitioner from embezzlement. 10. On 27.2.1998, the District Assistant Registrar directed Sri. 1,12,576. The Petitioner had also made representations concerning this charge with the District Magistrate and Assistant Registrar. This third writ petition, was decided on 7.12.1998 directing the Assistant Registrar to decide the representation. It is contended that by his order dated 17.2.1998, the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies exonerated Petitioner from embezzlement. 10. On 27.2.1998, the District Assistant Registrar directed Sri. Sushil Kumar Tyagi, the Secretary of the society to withdraw/give up the charge of the society. The Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 13312 of 1999 (4th writ petition) with a prayer that after the order dated 27.2.1998, the earlier position should be revived and that the Assistant Registrar should not interfere with his working. This writ petition was withdrawn by the Petitioner on 1.4.1999 with liberty to approach appropriate authority for the desired relief. 11. The Petitioner, thereafter, made a representation to the District Magistrate, requesting him to restore the charge of secretary taken from him by Sri. Shushil Kumar Tyagi on 21.1.1998. He pleaded that after he has been exonerated from the charge of embezzlement the charge must be restored. He also requested to initiate an enquiry against the District Co-operative Bank for its failure and not to adjust Rs. 85,000 from its saving bank account for the settlement of the loan taken by the society and to take appropriate action concerning the arbitration filed by the Petitioner against the District Co-operative Bank for recovery of Rs. 48,435. The Writ Petition No. 22371 of 1999 (5th writ petition) was disposed of by the Court with direction to Respondent to decide his representation. 12. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies decided Petitioner's representation on 14.7.1999. He did not accept the prayers of the Petitioner and observed that an Arbitration case concerning recovery of Rs. 48,436.89 is pending with the competent authority. With regard the demand of Petitioner to allow him to continue as secretary, the Court found that a Cadre Secretary has already been appointed. The Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 39385 of 1999 (6th writ petition) challenging the order of the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society dated 14.7.1999 in which notices were issued. The writ petition was dismissed in default on 18.3.2002. A restoration application is said to be pending. 13. Thereafter the Petitioner represented to the Collector, District Muzaffarnagar on 28.1.2000 to allow him to function as Secretary and to pay him his salary w.e.f. 1.1.1998. The writ petition was dismissed in default on 18.3.2002. A restoration application is said to be pending. 13. Thereafter the Petitioner represented to the Collector, District Muzaffarnagar on 28.1.2000 to allow him to function as Secretary and to pay him his salary w.e.f. 1.1.1998. The Writ Petition No. 21976 of 2000 (7th writ petition) was filed by the Petitioner with a prayer to allow him to function as Secretary and for payment of salary. This writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 9.5.2000 directing the Collector to decide Petitioner's representation. 14. The Collector did not decide the representation dated 28.2.2000, on which the Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 33989 of 2000 (8th writ petition) which was dismissed by the Court on 17.8.2000. It is contended by Counsel for Petitioner that the Counsel engaged by the Petitioner in that said writ petition did not convey to him the result of the writ petition. Record of subsequent Writ Petition No. 11268 of 2002 shows that this writ petition was dismissed with the following orders: The Petitioner, admittedly, was never appointed as Secretary in the Co-operative Society, but was asked to look after the said post as temporary arrangement. In his earlier writ petition, he prayed for decision of his representation and this Court has directed that it should be decided soon. This writ petition proceeded on the basis that the representation of the Petitioner is pending. Sri. V.B.S. Negi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, apart from the grounds mentioned above, has said that since the Petitioner stood exonerated from the allegations levelled against him, he should be permitted to continue to work on the post of Secretary in Muzaffarnagar Paschimi Kisan Sewa Sahkari Samiti, Ltd., Muzaffarnagar. Sri. H.R. Misra, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent states that the representation of the Petitioner has been decided inasmuch as the regularly appointed secretary has taken over the charge, where the Petitioner was asked to take temporary charge. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 15. The Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 45493 of 2000 (9th writ petition) for a writ of mandamus directing the Deputy Registrar to decide his representation dated 10.2.2000 for restoring him to the post of secretary and for payment of salary. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 15. The Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 45493 of 2000 (9th writ petition) for a writ of mandamus directing the Deputy Registrar to decide his representation dated 10.2.2000 for restoring him to the post of secretary and for payment of salary. This writ petition was again disposed of on 23.10.2000 with the direction to the Deputy Registrar to decide Petitioner's representation. The Writ Petition No. 5013 of 2001 (10th writ petition) was filed by the Petitioner with direction to Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society to decide the Arbitration case which according to the Petitioner was required to be decided within three months under Rule 240 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968. This writ petition is still pending. 16. The Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 11151 of 2002 (11th writ petition) for direction to the Registrar for payment of salary in which notices have been issued and this writ petition is also pending. On 26.3.2001, this writ petition was directed to be listed in the next cause list. 17. The Writ Petition No. 6262 of 2002 (12th writ petition) has been filed by the Society through the Petitioner as its secretary with a prayer to issue a direction to the Respondent including the Registrar, Deputy Registrar, Saharanpur Region; Assistant Registrar, Muzaffarnagar and District Co-operative Bank, Muzaffarnagar to release the seized records, accounts books, etc. Kisan Sewa Sahkari Samiti and communicate the result of the enquiry to Respondent No. 4. Notices have been issued in this writ petition on 26.2.2002 to which no reply has been filed and that the writ petition is still pending. 18. Writ Petition No. 11268 of 2002 (13th writ petition) was filed by the Petitioner as secretary through Sri. S.K. Gaur, advocate with a prayer commanding the Respondent to decide and to give award in favour of Petitioner in pursuance of his statement dated 17.3.2001 (Arbitration case) for return of Rs. 40,833. This writ petition was dismissed on 16.3.2002 with the following orders: Sri. Ummed Ali had filed Writ Petition No. 33989 of 2002. The said writ petition was dismissed. In the order dismissing the said writ petition it was held that the Petitioner was never appointed as a secretary in Muzaffarnagar Paschimi Kisan Sewa Samiti. This writ petition at his instance is not maintainable. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 19. Ummed Ali had filed Writ Petition No. 33989 of 2002. The said writ petition was dismissed. In the order dismissing the said writ petition it was held that the Petitioner was never appointed as a secretary in Muzaffarnagar Paschimi Kisan Sewa Samiti. This writ petition at his instance is not maintainable. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 19. Petitioner filed yet another Writ Petition No. 11268 of 2002 (13th writ petition) for refund of Rs. 40,833 for which he had already filed Arbitration case before the Deputy Registrar against the Respondent No. 2. This writ petition was dismissed on 16.3.2002. 20. The Writ Petition No. 13395 of 2002 (14th writ petition) was filed by the Petitioner for payment of salary to him. This writ petition was dismissed on 5.4.2002 imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000 upon the Petitioner. The Petitioner approached the Apex Court which reduced the cost to Rs. 2,000. 21. Inspite of imposition of costs and warning to the Petitioner for filing the repeated writ petitions, he filed yet another Writ Petition No. 19780 of 2002 (15th writ petition). In this petition, Sri. H.R. Misra Counsel for Respondent raised preliminary objection that no writ petition lies against a primary agricultural credit society and that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. This Court vide its order dated 9.5.2002 dismissed this writ petition with observations that in case Petitioner prefers petition u/s 128 of U.P. Co-operative Society Act within two weeks, the same shall be disposed of by the competent authority within six weeks thereafter. 22. Petitioner approached the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society with the order of this Court dated 9.5.2003. The Deputy Registrar has rejected his representation on 10.6.2003. In the present writ petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society, Saharanpur Region Saharanpur. He found that prior to this representation, Petitioner had also made representations on 26.6.1998 and 10.2.1998 which were decided by the District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society, Muzaffarnagar under the orders of the Court, on 17.3.1999 and 26.12.2000. The Deputy Registrar heard both Petitioner as well as Dhramveer Gupta, Managing Director of the Society. He also heard the representative of District Assistant Registrar, who submitted his report No. 369 dated 17.12.1999 in which it was reported that the Petitioner is entitled to continue as accountant in the Society. The Deputy Registrar heard both Petitioner as well as Dhramveer Gupta, Managing Director of the Society. He also heard the representative of District Assistant Registrar, who submitted his report No. 369 dated 17.12.1999 in which it was reported that the Petitioner is entitled to continue as accountant in the Society. The Society informed that by Resolution No. 8 dated 10.4.1999, the District Assistant Registrar had approved the joining of the Petitioner on regional post as accountant and that the society had by its letter No. 115 dated 16.4.1999 required Petitioner to join but the Petitioner has not reported for joining and is continuing unauthorisedly absent from duties w.e.f. 16.1.998 on account of which the Society had terminated his services on 15.7.2002. 23. Sri. S.L. Misra, Counsel for the Petitioner who has filed most of the writ petitions on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was appointed as secretary of the society and had taken over charge on 1.2.1997. He is pursuing the matters with regard to amounts due to the Society from the District Co-operative Bank as well as the amount attributed by the District Assistant Registrar towards the salary of the cadre secretary. He submits that the Petitioner was exonerated from the charges of embezzlements and that the Petitioner must be allowed to join as secretary of the society that a direction to decide all the pending Arbitration cases. 24. Sri. H.R. Misra, on the other hand, states that the Division Bench of this Court have twice found namely in Writ Petition No. 33989 of 2000 as well as Writ Petition No. 11268 of 2002 that the Petitioner was never appointed as secretary of the co-operative society and these findings cannot be reopened. The Petitioner as accountant of the Society has absented without authorisation w.e.f. 16.1.1998 and that he was never authorised to file writ petitions for deciding the Arbitration cases. The Petitioner appears to be crusader and is not tired of filing repeated writ petitions. The Court is surprised to find that apart from claiming himself to be secretary repeatedly even after his claims have been rejected by this Court twice, he has also claimed to recover the amounts which he claims to be wrongly deducted by the district Co-operative Bank and the District Assistant Registrar. The Court is surprised to find that apart from claiming himself to be secretary repeatedly even after his claims have been rejected by this Court twice, he has also claimed to recover the amounts which he claims to be wrongly deducted by the district Co-operative Bank and the District Assistant Registrar. It appears that either the litigation in this Court is so inexpensive or the Counsel lost his will to give correct legal advice that the Petitioner has filed repeated writ petitions for the same reliefs. Even the imposition of costs in 14th writ petition did not deter the Petitioner advised by the same Counsel Sri. H.L. Misra to file 15th and this 16th writ petition substantially for the same relief. 25. The Court finds that the Petitioner was never appointed as Secretary of the society. The orders of this Court dated 17.8.2000 and 16.3.2002 passed by the Division Bench holding that the Petitioner was never appointed as Secretary of the Society and that the Petitioner has not filed any appeals against the same to the Apex Court. The question of Petitioner's right to continue as Secretary, therefore, is barred by principle of res judicata and cannot be reopened. 26. So far as the Arbitration cases are concerned, the Petitioner has been misrepresenting himself as Secretary of the Society to pursue the claims. Either the Petitioner had the interest of the society in his mind or he wanted to prove his claim as Secretary of the Society is not certain. I, therefore, find that these Arbitration cases cannot be pursued by the Petitioner as secretary of the society and that the society is at liberty to pursue these pending Arbitration cases in accordance with the law. These Arbitration cases are still pending, they must be decided as expeditiously as possible. The Petitioner's claim for salary as Secretary of the Society is accepted. It has been held by this Court as he was not appointed as secretary of the society. He has absented himself from the society from 16.1.1998 and that there is no explanation for his absence in the writ petition. He was allowed to join on his original post as accountant and that the result was published by the society and a letter was sent to him on 16.4.1999 to join within three days. Petitioner did not choose to join as accountant. He was allowed to join on his original post as accountant and that the result was published by the society and a letter was sent to him on 16.4.1999 to join within three days. Petitioner did not choose to join as accountant. This Court, therefore, holds that the society rightly terminated his services. 27. The Petitioner has denied the service of registered letter dated 26.4.1999 and 23.1.2002 and that of a notice dated 4.7.2001 which was published in daily newspaper "Dainik Paschim Jyoti" with wide circulation in district Muzaffarnagar asking Petitioner to report on duty within three days. In view of the circumstances and the repeated assertions of the Counsel of the Petitioner that the Petitioner is reporting to the office of the Society on several dates, this Court finds hard to believe that the Petitioner was not aware of these notices. By this notice the Petitioner was required to join as accountant. The Petitioner, however, is not willing to join as accountant in the society and is still claiming the post of secretary. 28. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is unable to give Petitioner any relief. The Petitioner is severely reprimanded for filing repeated writ petitions and making these representations to this Court. The time has now come that the Petitioner must be stopped from filing any further writ petition in this Court unless he discloses the entire background with any fresh cause of action to maintain the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with Rs. 10,000 as cost against the Petitioner and with a warning that any further filing of the writ petitions on the same cause of action will be treated to abuse of the process of the Court, and in such case the Court will be constrained to draw proceeding against him for misusing the legal process. 29. In case the Petitioner files any further writ petition before this Court, the registry of the Court is directed to put up a report, giving the details of all the earlier writ petitions filed by him and this order. The copy of the order shall be given to the Registrar General of this Court for compliance.