Judgment Arvind Kumar, J. 1. Since a common question of law and facts is involved in all these petitions, they are being disposed of by this judgment passed in C.W.P. No. 4997 of 1986. 2. The facts of all the petitions are similar except the change in the names of petitioner firms. 3. Respondent No. 2 is an Apex institution in the State of Haryana for supply of items, on demand, to various office of the State Government, while the petitioners are its primary members, which are catering to the demands of various Government offices made through respondent No. 2. On the basis of an enquiry conducted by Vigilance Department and Cooperative Department, an order dated 3.7.1986 was passed by respondent No. 1 by dint of which he directed to black-list all the Societies, which included the petitioner Societies, on the ground that they have exorbitantly charged the rates of the material supplied to the PWD B&R, Haryana during the period 1.4.1982 to 31.10.1984. Following the afore-stated decision taken by respondent No. 1, respondent No. 2 passed orders dated 16.7.1986 separately and thereby black-listed the petitioner Societies and stopped all the transactions with them, which action of respondent No. 2 has been made the subject matter of challenge in the instant petitions. 4. Upon notice, respondent No. 2 filed separate written statements in all the petitions. Justifying the action of black-listing the petitioners from carrying out any further transactions on the grounds set out in the impugned orders, dismissal of the petitions has been sought. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the file carefully. 6. The only argument of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the Registrar, Cooperative Societies is not vested with any such power or authority to pass any such order, black listing the Societies. A reference has been made to the judgment of this Court passed in Civil Writ No. 6846 of 1974, decided on 17.9.1982, titled Hari Singh V/s. Asstt. Registrar, Coop. Society where a similar order regarding the black-listing was quashed, as there was no provision of law which could support the order to this effect. Hari Singhs case (Supra) has been duly followed in case reported as Gurdev Singh V/s. The Registrar Cooperative Societies 1983 (II) A.I.L.L.R. 339. 7. Registrar, Coop. Society where a similar order regarding the black-listing was quashed, as there was no provision of law which could support the order to this effect. Hari Singhs case (Supra) has been duly followed in case reported as Gurdev Singh V/s. The Registrar Cooperative Societies 1983 (II) A.I.L.L.R. 339. 7. The learned Counsel for the respondent is not in a position to refer to any provision of law under which the Registrar could pass the impugned order. Thus, suffice to say that the impugned orders passed by respondent No. 2 are without jurisdiction. 8. Therefore, all these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. The parties are left to bear their own costs.