ORDER 1. Heard on admission. 2. The respondent is a proprietorship firm and is engaged in the business of sale and purchase of cotton and its products, including “sarki”. Petitioner, Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sahakari Vipnan Sangh Maryadit, is a cooperative society. It too is engaged in the business of sale and purchase of various agricultural produce. 3. On 25.4.1991 the respondent entered into theree agreements nos. 4960, 4962 and 4963 with the petitioner for purchasing 2100 quintals of “sarki” and deposited Rs. 1,36,037.40 as security with it. The respondent received 600 quintals of “sarki” from the petitioner as against agreement no. 4960 and there is no dispupte with regard to it. But as against agreement no. 4962, the respondent received 1173 quintals and 10 kilograms and against agreement no. 4963, it received 300 quintals of “sarki” from the petitioner. Since the respondent was delivered 1473 quintals and 10 kilograms of “sarki” less than the agreed quantity and its security of Rs. 1,36,037.40 was forfeited by the petitioner, it filed a claim under section 64 of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, East Nimar, Khandwa. The claim was registered as Case No. 23/2000. 4. The petitioner took the defence that despite notice, the respondent failed to receive the delivery of “sarki” as a result of which the same got damaged due to rains and it had to be sold at much lower price. The petitioner also averred that the respondent alone is responsible for the loss of “sarki” and security has been rightly forfeited. 5. The Deputy Registrar, after scanning the evidence and materials brought on record, held that admittedly there was a provision for levying “caring charges” and, therefore, if there was delay on the part of respondent in taking the delivery of ‘sarki” the petitioner was at the most entitled to recover “caring charges”. The Deputy Registrar was also of the view that for the loss of “sarki” which was in the custody of petitioner, the respondent cannot be held liable. On these findings the Deputy Registrar, by order dated 16.11.2002, Annexure P1, allowed the claim of respondent and directed the petitioner to refund the security amount. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed first appeal before the Joint Registrar which was dismissed by order dated 6.4.2004, Annexure P. 2. On these findings the Deputy Registrar, by order dated 16.11.2002, Annexure P1, allowed the claim of respondent and directed the petitioner to refund the security amount. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed first appeal before the Joint Registrar which was dismissed by order dated 6.4.2004, Annexure P. 2. Thereafter, the petitioner filed second appeal No. 259/2004 before the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal, Bhopal, which too by a well reasoned order dated 11.8.2011, Annexure P3, has dismissed the same. Undeterred, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for petitioner and the cavetor, we find no merit in the petition. The order passed by the Cooperative Authorities and the Tribunal are well founded and unassilable. The learned counsel for petitioner could not point out any illegality in the concurrent findings of the Authorities and Tribunal. No case for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is made out. 7. The petition is dismissed summarily.