Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1300 (RAJ)

Rajesh Kumar Bhojnagarwala v. State of Rajasthan

2010-07-27

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2010
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners praying that the impugned order dated 4.9.2008 (Annexure-1) passed by the Cooperative Minister, Government of Rajasthan may kindly be quashed and set aside. 2. Brief facts of the case are under: The petitioners filed a complaint before the Registrar interalia alleging that they are holding plot Nos. 3 and 4 in Shri Ram Colony -B, Tonk Road Jaipur which were allotted by Jawaharpuri Bhawan Nirman Sahakari Samiti (in short cooperative Society) in the year 1982-1983. It was stated in the complaint that they constructed room and boundary wall but now it is learnt that certain persons have presented forged allotment/pattas before the Liquidator of the society and on the basis of these forged documents, the Liquidator has issued revised allotment letters for these plots. It was prayed that after making enquiry into the matter, the forged/revised allotment letters may kindly be cancelled. The complaint reads as under: ^^lsok esa] Jheku jftLVªkj lgdkjh lfefr;ka] t;iqj fo"k;&tkap djokus ckcrA egksn;] mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr fuosnu gS fd tokgjiqjh Hkou fuekZ.k lgdkjh lfefr fyfeVsM] t;iqj jft- uEcj 2294 ,y dh ;kstuk Jhjke dkyksuh] ch VkSad jksM t;iqj esa fLFkr gS] ftlesa IykV uEcj 03 Jh jkts'k dqekj Hkkstuxjokyk o IykV uEcj 04 Jherh ljkst nsoh ds uke lu~ 1982 o 1983 esa vkoaVu gqvk Fkk] bl ij gekjh ckm.Mªh oky cukbZ gqbZ gSA gesa Kkr gqvk gS fd bu IykaVksa ds QthZ iV~Vs rS;kj dj lekid egksn; ds le{k is'k dj vf/kdkj i= o vkoaVu i= fjokbZt ¼vkoaVu i=½ rS;kj dj ys x;s gSaA vr% vkils fuosnu gS fd mijksDr fo"k; esa Jheku ls vuqjks/k gS fd Jheku~ vius Lrj ij fu"i{k tkap djokdj tks vf/kdkj i= vkoaVu i= ys x;s gSa mudks jn~n djus dk d"V djsaA g- izkFkhZ** The Registrar examined the matter and issued directions to the Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies vide order dated 13.4.2007 under Section 55 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 (in short the Act of 2001) on the following issues as there were number of other complaints also: (i) Whether the Liquidator has got any authority under Section 64 of the Act to issue revised allotment letters? (ii) Whether the liquidator has followed prescribed procedure in issuing the revised allotment letters? (iii) How many revised allotment letters have been issued by the Liquidator? (ii) Whether the liquidator has followed prescribed procedure in issuing the revised allotment letters? (iii) How many revised allotment letters have been issued by the Liquidator? The petitioners got a public notice published in Rajasthan Patrika dated 6.5.2007 informing the public that enquiry in respect of the plots is being made by the Joint Registrar, therefore nobody should enter into any transaction in respect of these rules plots with Shri Abdul Rehman Qureshi. After issuing notice to the respondent No. 5, petitioners and other concerned persons, the Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies made thorough enquiry in the matter of allotment of various plots, issue of revised allotment lettters/ pattas by the Liquidator and related issues as per order of the Registrar and submitted his report running into 35 pages. The report was examined by the Registrar and ultimately by order dated 6.9.2007, he issued directions interalia for cancellation of revised pattas of plot numbers 1, 3, 4, 5 and 138 and issued various other directions. In pursuance of the order of the Registrar dated 1/6.9.2007 the Deputy Registrar on 7.2.2008 cancelled the revised pattas issued in respect of plots Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 138 on the basis of transfers made on the basis of forged documents and also cancelled the duplicate allotment letters issued in respect of plot Nos. 71, 91, 142, 165, 206, 181, 127, 159, 100 and 204. The respondent No. 5 filed revision petition before the Cooperative Minister, Government of Rajasthan against order dated 1/6.9.2007 of the Registrar. The petitioners stated in the writ petition that though the Registrar issued directions on the complaint filed by the petitioners but the petitioners were not impleaded as parties in the revision petition. When the petitioners came to know about the filing of the revision petition before the Cooperative Minister they submitted application for impleading them as parties and for affording opportunity of hearing. The order of the Registrar was set aside by the Cooperative Minister by the impugned order dated 4.9.2008 and in the same order the application for impleadment was also rejected. No separate order was passed before passing the impugned order. The petitioners given out in the petition that the final order dated 7.2.2008 was not challenged before the Cooperative Minister. It is submitted by the petitioners in the petition that the order dated 1.9.2007 was only an inter departmental communication. No separate order was passed before passing the impugned order. The petitioners given out in the petition that the final order dated 7.2.2008 was not challenged before the Cooperative Minister. It is submitted by the petitioners in the petition that the order dated 1.9.2007 was only an inter departmental communication. The final order was issued on 7.2.2008 in favour of the petitioners which was not challenged by the respondent No. 5 in the revision petition. The order of the Registrar has been set aside on the ground that opportunity of hearing was not given to the respondent No. 5 before passing the order dated 1.9.2007. The other ground given by the Cooperative Minister in the order was that the Registrar passed the order under Section 55 of the Act of 2001 whereas it could have been passed only under Section 58 of the Act. 3. The respondent No. 5 filed detailed reply to the writ petition. In the reply preliminary objections were raised. It was submitted that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed summarily being based on false facts. The complaint was filed by one Nanag Ram Meena at his own and not as a power of attorney holder of the petitioners. The application for impleadment was also filed by Nanag Ram Meena in his personal capacity in the revision petition before the Cooperative Minister. The petitioners did not approach the Registrar nor they have filed complaint nor the application for impleadment was ever filed by them and as such by twisting the facts that they have filed the present writ petition for extraneous consideration and are thus abusing the process of the Court. Another objection raised in the reply to the writ petition was that the petitioners demonstrated themselves to be the owner of the plots and allottee of plot Nos. 3 and 4 of Shri Ram Colony B, Jawaharpuri Bhawan Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur. The petitioners through their power of attorney have sold these plots to M/s. Riddhi Siddhi Infraproject Pvt. Limited and the sale deeds have been registered with the Sub Registrar Jaipur VIII. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioners demonstrating Shri Nanag Ram as their power of attorney which is contrary to their version in the sale deed. The petitioners through their power of attorney have sold these plots to M/s. Riddhi Siddhi Infraproject Pvt. Limited and the sale deeds have been registered with the Sub Registrar Jaipur VIII. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioners demonstrating Shri Nanag Ram as their power of attorney which is contrary to their version in the sale deed. It is stated in the objection that Nanag Ram is not holding any power of attorney of the petitioner No. 2 and filed this writ petition and supported the same with affidavit and therefore he is liable to be prosecuted for the same and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. It is further stated that the petitioners have sold these plots and now how they are concerned with the said plots and under what capacity the present petition has been filed by them as no cause of action survives. Reiterating the facts in the writ petition the respondent No. 5 stated in the reply that before passing Annexure-6 no opportunity of hearing as contemplated in rule 75(6) of the Rules of 2003 was provided to the respondent No. 5 by the Registrar. The State Government taking into consideration the material on record has rightly passed the order dated 4.9.2008 quashing the order dated 1/6.9.2007 passed by the Registrar under Section 55 of the Act of 2001. Hearing by the enquiry officer and by the final authority are two different stages which has to be followed by both the authorities. The respondent No. 5 admitted filing of the reply before the enquiry officer but stated that competent authority has not provided him the opportunity as provided under Rule 75(6) of the Rules of 2003. In the reply it was stated that the application for impleadment was filed by Nanag Ram and not by the petitioners. 4. The respondents 3 to 5 have also filed common reply to the writ petition reiterating the preliminary objections and the submissions made in the reply to the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 5. 5. Mr. N.K. Maloo, learned counsel for the petitioners before submitting arguments in this matter, has drawn attention of this Court that the writ petition was filed by Rajesh Kumar Bhojanagarwala and Smt. Saroj Devi, through their power of attorney Nanag Ram and Ramesh Chand respectively, but later on they have filed vakalatnama on 15.12.2009. Mr. 5. Mr. N.K. Maloo, learned counsel for the petitioners before submitting arguments in this matter, has drawn attention of this Court that the writ petition was filed by Rajesh Kumar Bhojanagarwala and Smt. Saroj Devi, through their power of attorney Nanag Ram and Ramesh Chand respectively, but later on they have filed vakalatnama on 15.12.2009. Mr. Maloo also contended that on 12.10.2009 the petitioners filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by which it was prayed that Raddhi Siddhi Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. 21, Shanti Colony, Sirohi Rajasthan, through its Director Mahendra Kumar Tank may be impleaded as petitioner No. 3. By the order dated 23.10.2009 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the application filed by the petitioners to implead Riddhi Siddhi Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. was allowed and Riddhi Siddhi Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. 21 Shanti Colony, Sirohi, Rajasthan through its Director Mahendra Kumar Tank being transferee of the land by the petitioners 1 and 2 was impleaded as petitioner No. 3 in the writ petition. Hence it was submitted that the petitioners are entitled to file this writ petition. 6. Mr. Maloo, learned counsel for the petitioners filed a detailed brief note stating that the plots belong to the petitioners but forged pattas of these plots have been issued by the liquidator of the Co-operative Society in favour of the respondent No. 5 Abdul Rehman Qureshi. There were several other complaints regarding the cooperative society and against the liquidator, therefore the Registrar ordered an inquiry under Section 55 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 (in short Act of 2001) and Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jaipur Division was appointed as inquiry officer by the order dated 3.4.2007. The Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies submitted a detailed report running into 38 pages to the Registrar. In the report he found grave illegalities committed by the liquidator of the society and the inspectors and the liquidator acted without jurisdiction while issuing pattas and duplicate pattas in respect of large number of plots. The liquidator was not even having complete record of the cooperative society which was not handed over by the society. It was found that large number of forged pattas have been prepared. The Joint Registrar issued notices to the complainant as well as to the respondent No. 5. The liquidator was not even having complete record of the cooperative society which was not handed over by the society. It was found that large number of forged pattas have been prepared. The Joint Registrar issued notices to the complainant as well as to the respondent No. 5. A general notice was also published in the newspaper, so that interested parties may submit their complaints. The respondent No. 5 himself appeared before the Joint Registrar in pursuance of the notice, and submitted reply and also gave his statement in evidence. He has also examined one Abdul Sayeed in the enquiry. The respondent No. 5 and Abdul Sayeed further stated that they will produce more witnesses and original documents of the plots on the next date but thereafter they did not appear with the witnesses and documents in the inquiry. The statements of complainant Rajesh Kumar and Ganesh Prasad husband of Smt. Saroj Devi (petitioner No. 2) and their witnesses were also recorded by the inquiry officer. The officer bearers of the society, liquidator and inspectors were also examined. The report of the Joint Registrar was examined by the Registrar along with the record and he recorded his findings and directions were given on 6.9.2007 vide Annexure 6, in which he found that the liquidator has no jurisdiction to transfer the Pattas. It was mentioned in the report that the pattas of plot Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 138 have been transferred on the basis of forged documents and further found that the cancellation of several pattas by him were not in accordance with law. Directions were issued to the Deputy Registrar for cancellation of proceedings of transfer of pattas in respect of plot Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 138. Thereupon the Deputy Registrar passed final order on 7.2.2008 in pursuance of the directions issued by the Registrar. Thereafter the respondent No. 5 filed a revision petition before the Minister Cooperative Department, Government of Rajasthan under Section 107 of the Act of 2001 through Shri Abdul Sayeed but no power of attorney was filed. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 138. Thereupon the Deputy Registrar passed final order on 7.2.2008 in pursuance of the directions issued by the Registrar. Thereafter the respondent No. 5 filed a revision petition before the Minister Cooperative Department, Government of Rajasthan under Section 107 of the Act of 2001 through Shri Abdul Sayeed but no power of attorney was filed. An application was filed by power of attorney of Shri Rajesh Kumar petitioner No. 1, for being impleaded as party in the revision petition as the enquiry was initiated upon the complaint filed by him and the consequential orders passed in pursuance of said inquiry were challenged by the respondent No. 5 in the revision petition but inspite of it, he deliberately did not implead the complainant i.e. the petitioners 1 and 2 as parties in the revision. The application for impleadment was dismissed by the minister concerned and the order dated 1/6.9.2007 of the Registrar was set aside. The order dated 7.2.2008 passed by the Deputy Registrar, which is the operative order issued in pursuance of the inquiry was not challenged in the revision petition. The revision petition was allowed by the Cooperative Minister on the ground that the enquiry should have been made under Section 58 of the Act of 2001 instead of section 55of the Act of 2001. It was observed in the order that whether the applicant is impleaded as party or not will not make any difference in hearing of the revision petition. The Minister has further observed that the impugned order has been passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the revision petitioner. Ultimately the order dated 1/6.9.2007 passed by the Registrar was set aside. Hence this writ petition was filed by the petitioners for setting aside the order of the Cooperative Minister. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the writ petition and the reply filed by the respondents. 8. Mr. N.K. Maloo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that previously this writ petition was filed only by the petitioner No. 1 Rajesh Kumar Bhojanagarwala through power of attorney Nanag Ram and petitioner No. 2 Smt. Saroj Devi, through power of attorney Ramesh Chandra. Both the petitioners sold the plot Nos. 3 and 4 to M/s. Riddhi Siddhi Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. by registered sale deed dated 30.3.2008. Both the petitioners sold the plot Nos. 3 and 4 to M/s. Riddhi Siddhi Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. by registered sale deed dated 30.3.2008. The petitioners in these circumstances in the first instance filed vakalatnama in their personal capacity and filed application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading Riddhi Siddhi Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. as petitioner No. 3 in the writ petition. The application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was allowed by this Court vide its order dated 23.10.2009 impleading Riddhi Siddhi Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. as petitioner No. 3 Mr. Maloo, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the argument of the respondent No. 5 and the observation of the Cooperative Minister in the impugned order that opportunity of hearing was not given to the respondent No. 5 is contrary to record. A written reply was filed and Abdul Rehman Qureshi and Sageer Ahmed also examined themselves in the enquiry. The took time to produce more witnesses and original documents but they failed to do so. Full opportunity of hearing was given to the respondent No. 5 and he availed it by filing reply, examination of witnesses and filing reply after the inquiry report dated 13.4.2007. Mr. Maloo drawn attention of this Court towards pages 20, 25, 26 and 43of the enquiry report (Annexure 5) wherein expressly names of Abdul Rehman Qureshi and Abdul Sagir have been mentioned. It was also mentioned that they have been given notice twice and informed over their mobile numbers also for producing the original document and evidence if any. Mr. Maloo contended that the Registrar is entitled to pass order for making enquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of a cooperative society on the basis of application filed before him or on his own motion. The powers under Section 55 are much wader than powers under Section 58 of the Act of 2001. Full opportunity of hearing was given to the respondent No. 5. The respondent No. 5 failed to show as to what prejudice has been caused to him by conducting inquiry under Section 55 of the Act of 2001 rather than under Section 58 of the Act of 2001. Full opportunity of hearing was given to the respondent No. 5. The respondent No. 5 failed to show as to what prejudice has been caused to him by conducting inquiry under Section 55 of the Act of 2001 rather than under Section 58 of the Act of 2001. The Cooperative Minister acted illegally in dismissing the application for impleadment filed on behalf of the petitioners even though the matter was initiated on their complaint and the finding of the Registrar was recorded in their favour and directions were issued in their favour. They were the affected and interested parties in maintaining the order of the Registrar but they were not impleaded as parties in the revision petition deliberately to obtain exparte order. In fact the revision petition should have been dismissed for non-impleadment of necessary parties. The respondent No. 5 has not challenged the final and operative order dated 7.2.2008 passed by the Deputy Registrar and therefore the order dated 7.2.2008 has become final. The revision petition has been filed only against the order dated 1/6.7.2008 which is not sufficient. Mr. Maloo contended that the petitioner No. 3 Riddhi Siddhi Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. purchased the property from the petitioners 1 and 2 and therefore they are interested parties in the case because they have purchased the land. Lastly Mr. Maloo contended that the proper opportunity of hearing was given to the respondent No. 5, which shows from the enquiry report of the Joint Registrar. 9. Mr. Ashok Misra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 drawn the attention of the court that the Cooperative Minister has rightly passed the impugned order and the Registrar Cooperative has got no power to enquire under Section 55 of the Act of 2001. Mr. Misra contended that this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who has no locus standi. He has further contended that the power of attorney holder cannot file writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For that purpose he has drawn attention of this Court to the case of Dr. (Mrs.) Daksha Sankhla through Ajay Singh, Power of Attorney Holder vs. Jai Narain University Jodhpur RLR 2001(2) page 685 = RLW 2001(2) Raj. 1035. He has read out paras 5, 10, 15, 17 and 18 of the judgment and contended that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the writ petition. (Mrs.) Daksha Sankhla through Ajay Singh, Power of Attorney Holder vs. Jai Narain University Jodhpur RLR 2001(2) page 685 = RLW 2001(2) Raj. 1035. He has read out paras 5, 10, 15, 17 and 18 of the judgment and contended that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the writ petition. He has further contended that the scopes of section 55 of the Act of 2001 and section 58 of the Act of 2001 are quite different. The Registrar has ordered enquiry on the basis of complaint received by him under Section 55 of the Act of 2001 instead of Section 58 of the Act of 2001. The Registrar has wrongly passed order under Section 55 of the Act of 2001 and the Cooperative Minister has rightly passed order after due appreciation of record for enquiry under Section 58 of the Act of 2001. He has drawn attention of this Court towards the case of Deccan Merchants Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. M/s. Dalichand Jugraj Jain and others ( AIR 1969 SC 1320 ). He has drawn the attention of this Court that the writ petition has been filed by the petitioners only on 21.10.2008, hence the writ petition is neither maintainable nor the order passed by the Cooperative Minister is illegal, hence the writ petition should be dismissed. 10. Before proceeding further it is necessary to have a look at the provisions of sections 55, 58 and 107 of the Act of 2010. Section 55 reads thus: "55. Inquiry by Registrar- (1) The Registrar may, on the application of- (a) A co-cooperative society to which the society concerned is affiliated; or (b) A majority of the members of the committee of the society; or (c) Not less than one-tenth of the total number of members of the society, or of his own motion, either by himself or by a person authorised by him by order in writing, hold an inquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of a co-operative society. (2) The Registrar, or the person authorised by him under sub-section (1) shall, for the purposes of an inquiry under this section have the following powers, namely:- (a) He shall, at all reasonable times, have free access to the books, accounts, documents, securities, cash other properties belonging to or in the custody of, the society and may summon any person in possession, or responsible for the custody, of any such books, accounts, documents, securities, cash or other properties, to produce the same at the headquarters of the society or any branch thereof; (b) He may summon any person, who, he has reason to believe, has knowledge of any of the affairs of the society, to appear before him at the headquarters of the society or any breach thereof any may examine such person on oath; and (c)(i) He may, notwithstanding any rule or bye-law specifying the period of notice for a general meeting of the society, require the officers of the society to call a general meeting at such time and place at the headquarters of the society or any branch thereof and to determine such matters as may be directed by him, and where the officers of the society refuse or fail to call such a meeting, he shall have power to call it himself; (ii) Any meeting called under sub-clause (i), shall have all the powers of a general meeting called under the bye-laws of the society and its proceedings shall be regulated by bye-laws. (3) All officers, members and employees of the society, whose affairs are investigated under this section, shall furnish such information in their possession in regard to affairs of the society as the Registrar or the person authorized by the Registrar may require. (4) It shall be competent for the Registrar to withdraw any enquiry from the officer to whom it is entrusted and to hold the enquiry himself or to entrust it to any other person as he deems fit. (5) When an inquiry is made under this section, the Registrar shall communicate the result of the inquiry to the society and to the cooperative society, if any, to which that society is affiliated. (5) When an inquiry is made under this section, the Registrar shall communicate the result of the inquiry to the society and to the cooperative society, if any, to which that society is affiliated. (6) The Registrar may, by an order in writing, direct any officer of the society or its financial bank or any other society to take such action as may be specified in the order to remedy, with such time as may be specified therein, the defects, if any, disclosed as a result of the enquiry." 58. Disputes which may be referred to arbitration.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society arises - (a) Amount members, past members and persons claiming through members, past members and deceased members or (b) Between a member, past member or a person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member and the society, its committee or any officer, agent or employee of the society, or (c) Between the society or its committee and any past committee, any officer, agent or employees or any past officer, past agent or past employees or the nominee, heirs of legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent or deceased employee or the society, or (d) Between the society and any other co-operative society, or (e) Between the society and the surety of a member, past member or a deceased member, or a person other than a member who has been granted a loan by the society or with whom the society has or had transaction under Section 52, whether such a surety is or is not a member of a society, Such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision and no Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such dispute : Provided that such disputes between the society and its employees, for which a remedy is available under the provisions of the service laws applicable on the employees, shall not be entertained under this section. (2) for the purpose of sub-section (1) the following disputes shall also be deemed to be the disputes touching the constitution, management or the business of a cooperative society, namely : (a) a claim by the society for any debt or demand due to it from a member of the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of a deceased member, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not; (b) a claim by a surety against the principal debtor where the society has recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any debt or demand due to it from the principal debtor as a result of the default of the principal debtor, whether such debt or demand is admitted or not; (c) any dispute arising under this clause shall be entertained during the period commencing from the announcement of election programme and ending on the declaration of the results. (3) If any question arises whether a dispute referred to the Registrar under this Section is a dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a cooperative society, the decision thereon of the Registrar shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court." "107. (3) If any question arises whether a dispute referred to the Registrar under this Section is a dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a cooperative society, the decision thereon of the Registrar shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court." "107. Power of revision of the government and the Registrar.—(1) The Registrar, in case where action has been taken by the officer subordinate to the Registrar and the state Government, in case where action has been taken by the Registrar, may, on their own motion or on an application of any aggrieved person, call for and examine the record of any inquiry or the proceedings of all such matters in which an action has been taken under this Act, except those in which an appeal lies to the Tribunal, for the purpose of satisfying themselves as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed, and as the regularity of the proceedings of such officer, if an any case, it appears to the State government or the Registrar, that any decision or order or proceeding so called for should be modified, annulled or reversed, the State Government or the Registrar as the case may be, may after giving persons affected a reasonable opportunity of being heard, pass such order thereon as it or he thinks just : Provided that every application to the Registrar or the State Government for the exercise of the powers under this section shall be preferred within ninety days from the date on which the proceedings, decision or order to which the application relates was communicated to the applicant : Provided further that the Registrar shall not exercise the powers under this sub-section in case in which an appeal lies to him under this Act. Explanation.—For the purpose of this sub-section, every person appointed to assist the Registrar and exercising all or any of the powers of the Registrar under sub-section (2) of Section 4, shall be deemed subordinate to the Registrar. (2) Pending the hearing under sub-section (1), the State government or the Registrar may pass such interlocutory order as it or he thinks fit to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated." 11. (2) Pending the hearing under sub-section (1), the State government or the Registrar may pass such interlocutory order as it or he thinks fit to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated." 11. It is an admitted fact that on a complaint received by the Registrar, enquiry was ordered under Section 55 of the act of 2001 and all the parties appeared before the enquiry officer and no objection was raised for taking the proceedings under Section 58 of the Act of 2001 by the parties who appeared before the enquiry officer or any objection was ever raised before the Registrar to refer the matter to arbitration under Section 58 of the act of 2001. The opening word in Chapter X of Settlement of Disputes says "58. Disputes which may be referred to arbitration". Since forgery was done the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies correctly ordered inquiry under Section 55 of the Act of 2001. 12. Sub-section (3) of Section 55 clearly lays down "all officers, members and employees of the society, whose affairs are investigated under this section, shall furnish such information in their possession in regard to affairs of the society as the Registrar or the person authorized by the Registrar may require. Further sub-section (4) of Section 55 lays down that "it shall be competent for the Registrar to withdraw any enquiry from the officer to whom it is entrusted and to hold the enquiry himself or to entrust it to any other person as he deems fit. Thus it is clear that Section 55 of the Act of 201 has much wider powers under the provisions of the Act of 2001 than to refer the matter under Section 58 of the Act of 2001 for arbitration. The order passed by the Cooperative Minister for referring the matter under Section 58 of the Act of 2001 is liable to be set aside. The Registrar Cooperative Societies rightly passed the order under Section 55 of the Act of 2001. In the enquiry proper opportunity was given to the respondent No.5 before the enquiry officer, hence it cannot be said that he was not heard in the matter. The Registrar Cooperative Societies rightly passed the order under Section 55 of the Act of 2001. In the enquiry proper opportunity was given to the respondent No.5 before the enquiry officer, hence it cannot be said that he was not heard in the matter. Perusal of Annexure-2 which is complaint filed by the petitioners would show that it was a compliant against the Liquidator of the Society, who was official under the direct control of the Registrar, and the Registrar was fully competent to enquire matters relating to the complaint received by him against the Liquidator. Thus the enquiry made by the Registrar under Section 55 of the Act of 2001 is legal and cannot be said to be illegal. It may further be mentioned that Annexure-10 revision petition was filed by Abdul Rehman Qureshi under Section 107 of the Act of 2001. It is also an admitted fact that only the Registrar Cooperative Societies Rajasthan was impleaded as respondent. It is also an admitted fact that application Annexure 11 was submitted by the complainant before the cooperative Minister under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading as party to the revision petition. The Cooperative Minister without impleading the petitioners as parties to the revision, passed the order dated 4.9.2008 reversing/annulling he order of the Registrar. Thus it is clear that the Cooperative Minister without giving persons affected a reasonable opportunity of being heard, passed the impugned order, which is the mandate of Section 107 of the Cooperative Societies Act. Giving of reasonable opportunity of being heard is necessary for passing any order under Section 107 of the Act of 2001. The order dated 4.9.2008 has been passed by the Cooperative Minister without hearing the affected person, thus deserves to be set aside. In Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya vs. Anil Panjwani (2003) 7 SCC 350, their Lordships of the Apex Court while discussing the provisions of Section 72 in the old Rajasthan Cooperative Societies act, which is similar to Section 58 in the Act of 2001, held that where there is a special tribunal conferred with jurisdiction or exclusive jurisdiction to try a particular class of cases even then the civil court can entertain a civil suit of that class on availability of a few grounds. An objection as to the exclusion of the civil court's jurisdiction for availability of alternative forum should be taken before the trial Court and at the earliest, failing which the higher Court may refuse to entertain the plea in the absence of proof of prejudice. In this case objection as taken with regard to Sections 75 and 137 of the old Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. Sections 75 and 137 in that case reads as under : "75. Disputes which may be referred to arbitration.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute touching the constitution, management, or the business of a cooperative society arises- (a) amount members, past members and persons claiming through members, past members and deceased members, or (b) between a member, past member or person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member and the society, its committee or any officer, agent or employee of the society, or (c) between the society or its committee and any past committee, any officer, agent or employee, or any past officer, past agent or past employee or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent or deceased employee of the society, or (d) between the society and any other cooperative society, (e) between the society and the surety of a member, past member or a deceased member, or a person other than a member who has been granted a loan by the society or with whom the society has or had transaction under Section 66, whether such a surety is or is not a member of a society, such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision and no Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceeding in respect of such dispute. (2) For the purpose of sub-section (1), the following shall be deemed to be disputes touching the constitution, management or the business of a cooperative society, namely– (a) a claim by the society for any debt or demand due to it from a member or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of a deceased member, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not; (b) a claim by a surety against the principal debtor where the society has recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any debt or demand due to it from the principal debtors as a result of the default of the principal debtor, whether such debt or demand is admitted or not; (c) any dispute arising in connection with the election of any officer of the society. (e) If any question arises whether a dispute referred to the Registrar under this section is a dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a cooperative society, the decision thereon of the Registrar shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court. * * * 137. Bar of jurisdiction of courts.—(1) Save as provided in this Act, no civil or revenue Court shall have any jurisdiction in respect of,– (a) the registration of a cooperative society or of an amendment of a bye-law; (b) the removal of a committee; (c) any dispute required under Section 75 to be referred to the Registrar; and (2) While a cooperative society is behind wound up, no suit or other legal proceedings relating to the business of such society shall be proceeded with, or instituted against, the liquidator as such or against the society or any member thereof, except by leave of the Registrar and subject to such terms as he may impose. (3) Save as provided in this Act, no order, decision or award made under this Act shall be questioned in any Court on any ground whatsoever." In para 21 of the judgment the Apex Court held as under : 21. In the present case there is nothing to show that the defendant is also a member of the society or claiming under a member. The plaintiff does not have any dispute with another member of the Society or the Society itself. The question of jurisdiction is to be determined primarily on the averments made in the plaint. In the present case there is nothing to show that the defendant is also a member of the society or claiming under a member. The plaintiff does not have any dispute with another member of the Society or the Society itself. The question of jurisdiction is to be determined primarily on the averments made in the plaint. The plaint as framed by the plaintiff is for declaration of title as owner (and in the alternative, his possessory title) and seeking restoration of possession, as also issuance of mandatory and preventive injunctions against a recent encroachment. Neither is it a dispute between the parties referred to in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1) of Section75, nor does the nature of the dispute fall under clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 75, so as to be one excluded from the domain of a civil court. At no stage of the proceedings has the defendant-appellant taken any objection to the jurisdiction of the civil court to try the suit. We are not satisfied - even prima facie - to hold that the civil Court suffered from any jurisdictional in incompetence to hear and try the suit. Several revision petitions were preferred in the High Court against the orders passed at several stages of the proceedings of the trial Court. An objection to the jurisdiction of the trial Court was not taken before the High Court in any of the civil revisions. It will be too late in the day to permit such an objection being taken and urged at the hearing before this Court. The plea as to want of jurisdiction in the trial Court is devoid of any merit and is, therefore, rejected. In the instant case there is nothing to show that the respondent No.5 was also a member of the society or claiming under a member. The petitioners do not have any dispute with another member of the Society or the Society itself. The complaint was against the Liquidator of Society for issuing forged pattas. Thus the provisions of Section 55 of the Act of 2001 have much wider powers than Section 58 of the Act which is similar to Section 75 which is quoted above. 12. The complaint was against the Liquidator of Society for issuing forged pattas. Thus the provisions of Section 55 of the Act of 2001 have much wider powers than Section 58 of the Act which is similar to Section 75 which is quoted above. 12. The contention of Mr.Misra that this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, who have no locus standi as the power of attorney holder cannot file writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners 1 and 2 themselves have filed vakatnama and in so far as petitioners No.3 is concerned, this Court vide order dated 23.10.2008 allowed the application for his impleadment as the petitioners 1 and 2 have sold the plots to the petitioner No.3. Thus the objection raised by the respondent No.5 in these circumstances cannot be sustained. The ruling cited by him Dr. (Mrs.) Daksha Sankhla through Ajay Singh, Power of Attorney Holder vs. Jai Narain University, Jodhpur RLR 2001(2) page 685, is also not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. The case cited by the learned counsel Deccan Merchants Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. M/s. Dalichand Jugraj Jain and Others ( AIR 1969 SC 1320 ) is also not be applicable in the instant case. The powers under Section 55 of the Act of 2001 are of much wider sense than the powers of referring the matter under Section 58 of the act for arbitration. It may also be mentioned that the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacating the ex parte interim order dated 10.11.2008 was disposed vide order of this Court dated 23.10.2009. Now there is no need to pass any further order on the application for vacation of the stay order and the application Inward No. 24544 dated 24.5.2010 as the writ petition is finally decided. 13. For these reasons, I allow this writ petition and the impugned order dated 4.9.2008 passed by the Cooperative Minister (Annex.1) is quashed There is no order as to costs.