ORDER : Rajesh Shankar, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 970/Ranchi dated 30.03.2013 passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jharkhand, Ranchi (respondent No. 3), whereby the letter No. SSGNS-17 dated 25.03.2012 has been set-aside and the petitioner has been directed to execute the sale-deed as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the allotment letter dated 05.11.1988. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 10.01.2014 corresponding to Memo No. 160/Ranchi dated 15.01.2014, whereby the review petition of the petitioner under section 48(7) of the Jharkhand Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1935") has been dismissed. 3. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the respondent No. 5 namely, Shri Shyamnandan Prasad became the member of the petitioner-Society on 05.11.1988. The petitioner-Society entered into an agreement with Smt. Mundrika Devi, wife of Sri Dashrath Lal for purchasing about 20 Katthas land of village Ranchi, Thana Ranchi, Thana No. 205, Pargana-Khukhra, Municipal Survey 1932-33, Ward No. III, Khata No. 9, Plot Nos. MS307 and RS707 on 28.11.1988. Thereafter, the Plot No. 307/F was provisionally allotted to the respondent No. 5 after receiving payment of Rs. 25,541/-. The petitioner has claimed that the respondent No. 5 did not pay installments in time and then the Secretary of the petitioner namely, Braj Bhushan Sinha wrote letter to the respondent No. 5 on 17.01.1989 indicating that in spite of repeated request, the respondent No. 5 did not comply the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. The petitioner-Society again wrote a letter to the respondent No. 5 on 07.05.1990 and requested him to make payment of the rest amount by 20.05.1990. The petitioner issued second allotment letter dated 06.09.1990 to the respondent No. 5 cancelling the previous allotment letter. On 28.11.1991, the respondent No. 5 issued an authorization letter to one Chandrama Singh to recover the amount from Braj Bhushan Sinha paid by him earlier. The petitioner also issued legal notice on 06.05.1997 to the respondent No. 5 and directed to comply all necessary formalities in order to execute the sale-deed effectively in his favour. On 28.11.1991, the respondent No. 5 issued an authorization letter to one Chandrama Singh to recover the amount from Braj Bhushan Sinha paid by him earlier. The petitioner also issued legal notice on 06.05.1997 to the respondent No. 5 and directed to comply all necessary formalities in order to execute the sale-deed effectively in his favour. The petitioner issued a letter on 08.09.2011 to the respondent No. 5 calling an explanation from him which was replied by the respondent No. 5 on 11.11.2011, however, vide letter dated 25.03.2012, the petitioner in exercise of power under Section 41(A) of the bye-laws of the Society and Rule 14(2) of the Jharkhand Co-operative Societies Rules, 1959, cancelled his membership and allotment of the plot. The respondent No. 5 filed an application under Section 48(1) of the Act, 1935 in the court of Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jharkhand (the respondent No. 3), vide Miscellaneous Case No. 10 of 2012 which was allowed vide order dated 30.03.2013 with a direction to the petitioner to execute the sale-deed in favour of the respondent No. 5 in terms of the letter of allotment dated 05.11.1988. The petitioner filed an application under Section 47(7) of the Act, 1935, vide Review Case No. 14 of 2013, however, the same was dismissed on 10.01.2014 which gives rise to filing of the present writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 5 has violated not only the terms and conditions of the allotment letter but also created the hindrance in smooth functioning of the Society which itself is evident from the conduct of the respondent No. 5, as he had given an authorization letter to one Chandrama Singh to recover the amount from Braj Bhushan Sinha paid by him for allotment of the plot. It is further submitted that on the provocation of the respondent No. 5, one Arjun Prasad had instituted a criminal case against the Secretary of the petitioner-Society, vide Kotwali P.S. case No. 289 of 1997, however, vide judgment dated 05.02.2009, he was acquitted in the said case. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the Registrar, Co-operative Society - respondent No. 3 has passed the impugned orders in exercise of the power conferred under the Act, 1935, which are completely legal and based on materials available on record. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the Registrar, Co-operative Society - respondent No. 3 has passed the impugned orders in exercise of the power conferred under the Act, 1935, which are completely legal and based on materials available on record. It is further submitted that initially, the respondent No. 5 was allotted a plot under Khata No. 9, Khesra Nos. 19, 117, 139 bearing Plot No. M.S. No. 307 corresponding to R.S. 707 Sub Plot No. 307/F measuring an area of 2 Kattha 8 Chattak after deposit of Rs. 25,511/- and thereafter, an agreement was executed by the petitioner-Society with Mundrika Devi for purchase of the land on 28.11.1988. The record of the case reveals that the respondent No. 5 paid Rs. 46,511/- pursuant to the allotment, however, the sale-deed was not executed in his favour. The earlier allotment letter was cancelled by the petitioner and fresh allotment letter dated 06.09.1990 was issued to the respondent No. 5 vide letter No. SSGNS/PF/2 dated 07.04.1993 allotting Plot No. 707A. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 submits that the allotment of earlier plot was changed to his disadvantage and as such, he had given an authorization letter to Sri Chandrama Singh to ensure the refund of his money. However, it has wrongly been alleged that Sri Arjun Prasad was provoked by the respondent No. 5 to institute criminal case against Braj Bhushan Sinha. It is further submitted that due to the harassing attitude of the petitioner-Society, the respondent No. 5 had no other option but to surrender the plot as the allotment of the plot was changed to his disadvantage with ill-motive and there was no approach road for the newly allotted plot. It is further submitted that the letter of cancellation of membership of the respondent No. 5 was never communicated to him. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the documents available on record, it appears that the respondent No. 5 was one of the founder members of the Society and he was provisionally allotted a plot being Plot No. 307/F measuring an area of 2 Kattha 8 Chattak. The respondent No. 5 also deposited an amount of Rs. 46,511/- pursuant to the said allotment. The respondent No. 5 also deposited an amount of Rs. 46,511/- pursuant to the said allotment. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that in spite of repeated requests, the respondent No. 5 did not deposit the installments for the allotted plot and the second allotment letter was issued to him on 06.09.1990 for plot No. 707/A. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 has contended that the second allotment letter was issued behind his back with lesser measurement and also without any approach road. The claim of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 5 created hindrance in the smooth functioning of the Society and as such, he has been expelled from the membership of the Society and allotment of his plot has also been cancelled. On consideration of the facts of this case, it appears that the Secretary of the Society namely, Braj Bhushan Sinha had some personal grievance against the respondent No. 5, as he has alleged that on the provocation of the respondent No. 5, one Arjun Prasad had instituted a criminal case for which Braj Bhushan Sinha had to suffer for 12 years due to the said false case. It has also been alleged in the writ petition that the respondent No. 5 had given authorization letter to one Chandrama Singh to forcibly collect the price of the plot from the Society. Thus, it seems that due to some personal grudge, Braj Bhushan Sinha, the Secretary of the Society, did not execute the sale-deed in favour of the respondent No. 5 in spite of repeated directions of the respondent authorities. The petitioner has failed to show any valid reason to justify its stand in not executing the sale-deed in favour of the respondent No. 5. 8. Further, on perusal of the impugned orders, it transpires that the respondent No. 3 has gone into the details of the case including all relevant documents and has reached a finding that though the claim of the respondent No. 5 was genuine and there were several departmental directions to execute the sale-deed in favour of the respondent No. 5, the petitioner-Society failed to comply the said directions by levelling personal allegations. In the present writ petition also, the petitioner has failed to show any cogent reason for not executing the sale-deed in favour of the respondent No. 5. In the present writ petition also, the petitioner has failed to show any cogent reason for not executing the sale-deed in favour of the respondent No. 5. The petitioner through its Secretary - Braj Bhushan Sinha appears to have levelled certain allegations against the respondent No. 5 without any corroborative material. Moreover, it is a settled principle of law that before cancellation of allotment, a reasonable opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the allottee. However, in the present case, no such opportunity of hearing was given to the respondent No. 5. Further, making fresh allotment of plot which as per the respondent No. 5, has lesser measurement that too without any approach road also appears to be arbitrary. All these factual aspects have been duly considered by the respondent No. 3 while passing the impugned orders. Thus, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned orders contained in Memo No. 970/Ranchi dated 30.03.2013 and Memo No. 160/Ranchi dated 15.01.2014. 9. The present writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.