Judgment Permod Kohli, J. 1. This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 11473 of 2005, 18973 of 2004 and 5708 of 1985 as common question of facts and law are involved. 2. Brief facts of the case may first be noticed which are being take from CWP No. 11473 of 2005. The petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 and is engaged in the work of printing and stationary. The petitioner is aggrieved of instructions/communications annexed as Annexure P-1 to P-4 with the writ petition whereby the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana has issued directions to all Co-operative Apex Institutions, Central Co-op. Banks, Co- operative Sugar Mills, Primary Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Dev. Banks, Urban Co-operative Banks and T/c Societies to review the working of Harcofed Press, place all printing and stationary orders with the government owned Haryana Co-operative Press. 3. Vide Annexure P-1, Registrar, Co-operative Society has issued directions to all the above- mentioned co-operative bodies in the State of Haryana to comply with the earlier government instructions dated 28.6.2009. The aforesaid government instructions are annexed as Annexure P-2. It has been noticed in the Annexure P-2. It has been noticed in the Annexure P-2 that earlier there were some complaints against Harcofed Press regarding quality and prices of printed material and delay in the supplies. It has also been constituted for fixing the norms both for quality and prices of articles. It is also mentioned that Managing Director, Harcofed has assured that the quality of printed goods would be maintained and reasonable prices would be charged as per the norms fixed by the Committee. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies has now asked all the co-operative institutions to place all printing society or to any other source. The aforesaid instructions were followed by further instructions dated 27.6.2003 (Annexure P-3 and P-4). The substance of all the instructions is that the entire printing work of all the co-operative institutions in the State are entrusted to Harco including the supply of material. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid instructions primarily on following grounds -- Firstly, that it amounts to creating monopoly in the one organization. Two, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies has no jurisdiction to issue such instructions. Apart from the above, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the instructions are otherwise violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Two, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies has no jurisdiction to issue such instructions. Apart from the above, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the instructions are otherwise violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. They are arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. 4. I have pursued the aforesaid instructions and also considered the reply filed by the respondent. Addl. Registrar, Co-op. Societies (Marketing) who filed an affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 1 has relied upon Section 38(2) of the Haryana Cooperative Societies, Act, 1984 to plead that the Registrar has the jurisdiction and authority under the aforesaid provision. Section 38(2) of the Haryana Co-operative Societies, Act, 1984 reads as under - "(2) The Registrar may issue such directions as he considered necessary for the efficient conduct of the business of cadre society or its member societies." 5. It is further stated that the instructions are issued by the Registrar Co- operative Societies to streamline the purchase of stationary and printing requirement and to ban the entry of private printers and suppliers with a view to curb unethical effects. 6. I have heard the counsel for the parties. Even though the instructions Annexure P-l to P-4 do not disclose any provision of law under which such instructions have been passed. It is only reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 that a source is sought to be projected. Section 38(2) of the Haryana Co-operative Societies, Act, 1984 fall under Chapter V which deals with the common cadre. The aforesaid chapter deals with the constitution of a common cadre of all the specified clause of employees in the service in various societies. The instructions contemplated under Section 38(2) relate to the common cadre societies and it has nothing to do with the imposition of restrictions on the working of the societies duly registered under the Haryana Co-operative Societies, Act, 1984. Even it is assumed that the Registrar has the competence to issue instructions regarding the conduct of business, there is nothing on record to indicate that the societies enumerated in the instructions to whom the instructions have been issued, constitute the common cadre and Harcofed is also a member of the Common Cadre Societies. In the absence of there being any material, invocation of provision of Section 38(2) of the Act is not justifiable. 7. In the absence of there being any material, invocation of provision of Section 38(2) of the Act is not justifiable. 7. The instructions confining the printing and purchase of material to only one society is otherwise arbitrary in nature and discriminatory, thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Such a restriction goes against the principle of equal opportunity and equal treatment and deserves to be deprecated. 8. By virtue of the impugned instructions otherwise also monopoly is sought to be created in the respondent No. 2 without creating any competition. It is petitioner to notice that in the instructions (Annexure P-2) it has been specifically mentioned that there were lot of complaints regarding the quality and prices of the printing material as also the delays in execution by Harcofed. In presence of these complaints, creating monopoly in the respondent No. 2 is otherwise not justified. In absence of fair competition, there is likelihood of dilution of quality. The petitioner-society has a right to compete particularly when it relate to the government largesse. No monopoly can be created in such a manner. 9. For the above-said reasons, the impugned notifications are hereby quashed to the extent these instructions direct securing of printing and material only from respondent No. 2.