Deodas Mohanta and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- madhya pradesh municipal corporation act (23 of 1956)section 91 & m.p. municipal corporation act (1956), section 307(5): [a.k. patnaik, c.j., a.m. sapre & s.k.seth, jj] public nuisance - suit for injunction - held, section 91(i) of the c.p.c. is not exhaustive of the remedies that are available to a party even in case of a public nuisance or other wrongful act affecting or likely to affect the public. the remedy of the corporation and any other person under sub-section (5) of section 307 of the act of 1956 is independent of the provisions of section 91 of the c.p.c. and not only the corporation but any other person can apply to the district court for injunction or removal or alteration of a building on the ground that the provisions of the act of 1956 or the bye-laws made thereunder have been contravened. sections 41(j) & 4 & m.p. municipal corporation act (1956), section 307(5): [a.k. patnaik, c.j., a.m. sapre & s.k. seth, jj] relief of injunction held, the reliefs under the specific relief act, 1963 are granted for the purpose of enforcing individual civil rights as will be clear from section 4 of the specific relief act. 1963. accordingly, injunction under part iii of the specific relief act, 1963 is granted to the plaintiff either to prevent a breach of an obligation in favour of the plaintiff, or to compel the performance of an obligation in his favour. unless, therefore, there is an obligation in favour of the plaintiff which needs to be enforced, the court cannot grant injunction. hence, it is provided in section 41(j) of the specific relief act. 1963 that an injunction cannot be granted when the plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter. the provisions of the specific relief act, 1963 do not apply to the right conferred on the corporation and any other person under sub-section (5) of section 307 of m.p. municipal corporation act, 1956. under the provisions of the act of 1956, every building must comply with the provisions of the act of 1956 and the byelaws made thereunder and hence if there is any breach of the provisions of the act of 1956 or the bye-laws made thereunder, sub-section (5) of section 307 of the act of 1956 confers a right not only on the corporation but also any other person to apply to the district court for an injunction for removal or alteration of a building on the ground that there has been the contravention of the provisions of the act of 1956 or the bye-laws made thereunder. this remedy under sub-section (5) of section 307 of the act of 1956 is independent of and different from the remedies under the specific relief act. 1963. section 307(5): [a.k. patnaik, c.j., a.m. sapre & s.k. seth,jj] injunction for removal or alternation of any building-locus standi to claim - held, the word any which has diverse meanings, therefore, has to be interpreted depending on the context and the subject matter of statute in which it is used. there are various other provisions in the act of 1956 and the byelaws made thereunder relating to buildings within the area of the corporation which have to be complied with. legislature has., therefore, to provide for some remedy if the provisions of the act of 1956 or the byelaws thereunder in respect of a building are violated. it is only for this reason that under sub-section (5) of section 307 of the act of 1956, a right has been conferred not only on the corporation but on any other person to apply to the district court for injunction for removal of a building or alteration of any building on the ground that it contravenes any provisions of the act or the byelaws made thereunder. hence, not only the corporation but every other person has been given the right to apply to the district court for injunction for the removal or alteration of any building on the ground that it contravenes any provisions of the act or the byelaws made thereunder. the context and the subject-matter of the statute in which the word any has been used is thus, wide enough to include all persons other than the corporation or every other person other than the corporation or any other person other than the corporation. - the petitioners complain of humiliation and insult heaped upon them in the khula manch. however, since these allegations regarding bhopal khula manch form the corner-stone of that writ petition as well as writ petition 3545 of 1994, we will first deal with the factual controversy regarding khula manch held at bhopal. there is no reliable material on record to persuade the court to accept the correctness of the allegations of the second petitioner. 2902 of 1994 regarding alleged illegalities and irregularities in the khula manch at bhopal, a large number of people were involved in these disputes which touch upon powerful and entrenched housing cooperative societies. the petitioners have not placed any reliable documentary material before us to show that the forum of khula manch was used to adjudicate disputes by pronouncement of decisions by any person.orderu.l. bhat, c.j.1. there are a large number of housing co-operative societies in the state, main of them are in the main cities of bhopal, indore, jabalpur, raipur. the state government has been receiving complaints about irregularities in functioning of these societies, such as, wrongful expulsion of members, non-allotment of plots to members in spite of dues having been paid, enrolment of excessive or bogus members, corruption on the part of presidents and other office-bearers of societies etc. the state government decided to arrange khula manch (open house) at various places to consider these complaints and grievances and find solution for the same. the procedure adopted is to advertise in newspapers informing all concerned about holding of khula manch at a particular place, invite applications from aggrieved persons, require officers of the co-operative department to conduct enquiries into the grievances, invite applicants and the presidents of the societies to the khula manch and with the participation of contending parties, find solutions for the grievances. the first khula manch was held at indore on 7-8-1994 and the next was held at bhopal on 10-8-1994. it is said that there was tremendous response from aggrieved persons, presidents of several co-operative housing societies participated and cooperated with the venture and solutions for many disputes were found. the second -respondent, minister incharge of cooperative societies, participated in and supervised these efforts.2. the petitioners in w. p. no. 2902/94 are presidents of the housing co-operative societies functioning in bhopal. they contend that the procedure adopted of khula manch is contrary to constitution and the laws, particularly the provisions of the m. p. co-operative societies act, 1960 (for short the act), coercive power of the state was employed in the khula manch to threaten, intimidate and browbeat presidents of the societies, that the second respondent would dispose of the complaints by passing orders without any authority. in short, according to these petitioners, khula manch is a negation of rule of law. first petitioner also complains of illegal arrest and wrongful detention and late production before the competent magistrate and filing of a false criminal case against him. second petitioner, who was absent at the bhopal khula manch complains that his father's presence was requisitioned by threat of imprisoning the son. the petitioners complain of humiliation and insult heaped upon them in the khula manch.3. respondents 1, 3, 4 and 5, namely the state government, joint registrar, deputy registrar of co-operative societies and commissioner of revenue filed a joint return. second respondent filed a separate return besides adopting the averments in the return of other parties. petitioner filed a rejoinder to the return. respondents 5 and 6 filed an additional return. almost at the end of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that i. a. no. 8159 of 1994 for amendment was pending. it was allowed on the basis that the factual averments therein are to be taken as denied by the respondents. several persons sought to intervene in these writ petitions. they have been allowed to intervene.4. petitioner in w. p. no. 3133 of 1994 is a supporter of the policy of holding khula manch. he points out that khula manch in jabalpur in september 1994 was announced and several complaints were already received. he seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to ensure that these complaints are resolved at the earliest.5. petitioner in w. p. no. 3546 of 1994 is a housing co-operative society in raipur represented by its president. khula manch is being organised at raipur and the petitioner seeks declarations that the khula manch is unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary and a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from holding khula manch. respondents 1 and 5 to 10 are represented by learned advocate general. we find it unnecessary to issue notice to respondents 2 to 4.6. we have heard learned counsel for the petitioners in those writ petitions, learned advocate general, learned counsel for the second respondent in w. p. no. 2902 of 1994 and the learned counsel representing the interveners.7. the main question arising for consideration is whether there is any constitutional or legal inhibition against the state government organising khula manch to dispose of grievances and complaints of members of housing cooperative societies vis a vis action or inaction of the societies or their presidents. in writ petition no. 2902 of 1994, there are averments in relation to khula manch at indore. since none of the parties interested in that khula manch is before us, we do not propose to deal with those averments. the attack on khula manch levelled in w. p. no. 2902 of 1994 is based on the manner in which khula manch at bhopal was conducted and the alleged unlawful treatment meted out to the first petitioner and father of the second petitioner. father of the second petitioner has not filed writ petition. second petitioner has not filed an affidavit. however, since these allegations regarding bhopal khula manch form the corner-stone of that writ petition as well as writ petition 3545 of 1994, we will first deal with the factual controversy regarding khula manch held at bhopal.8. the averments in the writ petition no. 2902 of 1994 can be summarised as follows :first petitioner is the president of a housing co-operative society. the second respondent created an atmosphere of terror at the khula manch, behaved as a dictator issuing directions and directed arrest of office bearers of the societies, insulted and humiliated them and their signatures were taken forcibly. second respondent asked the first petitioner why he was not allotting plots to the complaining members to which he replied that he had expelled 11 members as they were not eligible for allotment and that the complainants had raised disputes before the deputy registrars under the provisions of the act and they were pending. police officers present at the khula manch on 10-6-1994 arrested the first petitioner at 6.30 p.m. as per instructions of the second respondent but the arrest was actually recorded by govindpura police station as having taken place at kasturba hospital, far away from ravindra bhawan where khula manch was held, produced him before the additional district magistrate (executive), bhopal only on 12-8-1994 showing arrest under section 151, criminal procedure code and charged under sections 107/116 of the code and he was released by the magistrate within 48 hours of arrest on furnishing security on executing a bond for keeping peace.9. the contents of the returns can be summarised as follows :there are complaints of gross irregularities, corruption and illegal accumulation of wealth on the part of presidents and office bearers of housing co-operative societies. complaints and disputes have been pending over the years without any solution and without any relief being granted to those who have been deceived and duped. therefore a decision was taken to organise khula manch at various places to consider the grievances of complaining members of the societies by securing the presence of both parties and advising them to solve the grievance. khula manch is organised by the state government under the supervision of the second respondent, the minister concerned on the same pattern as lok adalats. applications would be invited from aggrieved members, officers of the department make summary enquiries, verify records and accounts of the societies giving opportunities to office-bearers to respond to the grievances. these applications are taken up at khula manch giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. no orders are passed by or at the instance of the second respondent in the khula manch. both the parties would be called to the dais where the second respondent and the officers of the department are present and efforts are made to solve the problems mutually. where the president and office bearers of a society agree to any solution, their consent would be taken in writing. in appropriate cases of malpractice directions would be given to competent authority to initiate action under law. the proceedings are entirely consensual and no force or threat or coercion is exercised. allegations of humiliation and insult are not true. nobody's signature is taken by intimidation or use of force. no direction is issued to any police officer to arrest anyone.10. the averments regarding the alleged illegalities committed by the second respondent, officers of the government and the police officers have been denied in the various returns. the first petitioner relies on certain newspaper reports, the correctness of which is denied by the respondents who in turn rely on certain other newspaper reports the correctness of which is denied by the first petitioner. the petitioners also rely on certain affidavits produced by them the correctness of which is denied by the respondents. in a controversy of this nature, we do not deem it prudent to place reliance on controversial newspaper reports and affidavits the contents of which are not admitted.11. the petitioners rely on a report in 'india today' dated 15-9-1994 at page 152. the contents of report are not accepted by the respondents. at page 152 is a photograph said to be that of the first petitioner with one of his arms held by a police officer and a police constable. this photograph, according to learned counsel for the petitioners, was taken at the moment of the first petitioner's arrest at the khula manch. learned advocate general stated that there were large number of aggrieved members present at the khula manch and the atmosphere was tense on account of the attitude adopted by the first petitioner. therefore, to ease the tension, police officers led the petitioner out and left him there. learned counsel for the petitioners have not been able to point out any part of the report relating to alleged arrest of the first petitioner at the khula manch. therefore, the explanation offered by the learned advocate general appears to be acceptable.12. certain records relating to the police case against the first petitioner and others and the orders of the appropriate magistrate have been produced before us. these records show that govindpura police received a message late in the evening on 10-8-1994 that there was commotion near the kasturba hospital. they rushed to the place and found a big crowd present and the first petitioner on one hand and two others on the other engaged in a furious quarrel. apprehending commission of a cognizable offence, they arrested all the three persons under section 151 of the code and took them to the police station and produced them before the city magistrate (executive) on 11-8-1994. the city magistrate (executive) who was very busy in law and order duty passed an order directing the arrested persons to be produced on 12-8-1994. they were produced on 12-8-1994 and released on execution of bond for maintaining peace and furnishing security. we find no reason to doubt the authenticity of the contents of these documents relating to arrest on 10-8-1994. production before the city magistrate (executive) on 11-8-1994 and production again on 12-8-1994 and release. hence the main contention of the first petitioner that he was illegally arrested at the khula manch for not obeying the directions of the second respondent and was illegally detained in police custody for more than 24 hours and was produced before the competent magistrate only long after the lapse of 24 hours cannot be sustained.13. according to the petitioners, second petitioner's father was former president of a housing co-operative society and he was replaced by the second petitioner. there were complaints against office-bearers of this co-operative society also at the khula manch. second petitioner was not present though his father was present. according to the petitioners, second respondent threatened that unless second petitioner came forward, he would be arrested and thereupon the second petitioner's father went to the dais. this allegation is denied by the respondents according to whom when the name of the second petitioner was called, the second petitioner's father came forward pretending to be the second petitioner. it is further alleged by the petitioners that the second respondent uttered defamatory words and threats at the second petitioner's father and directed him to invest a part of his ill-gotten earning. these averments have been denied by the second respondent. there is no reliable material on record to persuade the court to accept the correctness of the allegations of the second petitioner.14. in view of what is indicated above, we are not in a position to accept as correct the allegations levelled by the petitioners in w. p. no. 2902 of 1994 regarding alleged illegalities and irregularities in the khula manch at bhopal, a large number of people were involved in these disputes which touch upon powerful and entrenched housing cooperative societies. naturally passions are excited on both sides and the government organised khula manch with a view to settle the disputes in the interest of the societies and the public. it is not prudent to place any reliance on exaggerated newspaper reports in regard to khula manch held at bhopal. the contention that the provisions of the code of criminal procedure and article 21 of the constitution have been violated must necessarily fall to the ground.15. section 64 of the act provides for reference of disputes to the registrar, cooperative societies for decision. there are provisions for appeal and revision. according to the petitioners, registrar has to decide disputes in accordance with law taking into consideration the provisions of limitation act and court fees act. the basic contention of the petitioners is that decisions are taken at the khula manch by the second respondent or officers of the department and that is violative of the provisions of the act. the petitioners have not placed any reliable documentary material before us to show that the forum of khula manch was used to adjudicate disputes by pronouncement of decisions by any person. as explained in the returns, khula manch is conceived as a forum to settle long pending and outstanding grievances by mutual consent on the pattern of lok adalats. respondents have made it repeatedly clear in the return that khula manch is no different from lok adalat which is based on mutual consent of both the parties. it is clear that nobody is obliged to give consent for settlement of any grievance or dispute. consent is purely voluntary. in these circumstances, we rejected the contention that organising khula manch is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provision.16. there is no reason to apprehend that khula manchs to be organised in future are likely to violate any law. we have no doubt that the state government and the respondents who are alerted to the contentions raised in these writ petitions would take all care to ensure that khula manch rests on the basis of mutuality and mutual consent and the participating ministers or government officers play a purely inspiring and mediatory role.17. in these circumstances, we find no merit in w. p. no. 2902 of 1994, we find no merit in the apprehensions expressed by the petitioner in w. p. no. 3346 of 1994. we find no justification to issue any direction of the nature sought in w. p. no. 3133 of 1994. all the writ petitions are dismissed but without costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

U.L. Bhat, C.J.

1. There are a large number of Housing Co-operative Societies in the State, main of them are in the main cities of Bhopal, Indore, Jabalpur, Raipur. The State Government has been receiving complaints about irregularities in functioning of these Societies, such as, wrongful expulsion of members, non-allotment of plots to members in spite of dues having been paid, enrolment of excessive or bogus members, corruption on the part of Presidents and other office-bearers of Societies etc. The State Government decided to arrange KHULA MANCH (open house) at various places to consider these complaints and grievances and find solution for the same. The procedure adopted is to advertise in newspapers informing all concerned about holding of Khula Manch at a particular place, invite applications from aggrieved persons, require officers of the Co-operative Department to conduct enquiries into the grievances, invite applicants and the Presidents of the societies to the Khula Manch and with the participation of contending parties, find solutions for the grievances. The first Khula Manch was held at Indore on 7-8-1994 and the next was held at Bhopal on 10-8-1994. It is said that there was tremendous response from aggrieved persons, Presidents of several Co-operative Housing Societies participated and cooperated with the venture and solutions for many disputes were found. The second -respondent, Minister Incharge of Cooperative Societies, participated in and supervised these efforts.

2. The petitioners in W. P. No. 2902/94 are Presidents of the Housing Co-operative Societies functioning in Bhopal. They contend that the procedure adopted of Khula Manch is contrary to Constitution and the laws, particularly the provisions of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short the Act), coercive power of the State was employed in the Khula Manch to threaten, intimidate and browbeat Presidents of the Societies, that the second respondent would dispose of the complaints by passing orders without any authority. In short, according to these petitioners, Khula Manch is a negation of rule of law. First petitioner also complains of illegal arrest and wrongful detention and late production before the competent Magistrate and filing of a false criminal case against him. Second petitioner, who was absent at the Bhopal Khula Manch complains that his father's presence was requisitioned by threat of imprisoning the son. The petitioners complain of humiliation and insult heaped upon them in the Khula Manch.

3. Respondents 1, 3, 4 and 5, namely the State Government, Joint Registrar, Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Commissioner of Revenue filed a joint return. Second respondent filed a separate return besides adopting the averments in the return of other parties. Petitioner filed a rejoinder to the return. Respondents 5 and 6 filed an additional return. Almost at the end of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that I. A. No. 8159 of 1994 for amendment was pending. It was allowed on the basis that the factual averments therein are to be taken as denied by the respondents. Several persons sought to intervene in these writ petitions. They have been allowed to intervene.

4. Petitioner in W. P. No. 3133 of 1994 is a supporter of the policy of holding Khula Manch. He points out that Khula Manch in Jabalpur in September 1994 was announced and several complaints were already received. He seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to ensure that these complaints are resolved at the earliest.

5. Petitioner in W. P. No. 3546 of 1994 is a Housing Co-operative Society in Raipur represented by its President. Khula Manch is being organised at Raipur and the petitioner seeks declarations that the Khula Manch is unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary and a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from holding Khula Manch. Respondents 1 and 5 to 10 are represented by learned Advocate General. We find it unnecessary to issue notice to respondents 2 to 4.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners in those writ petitions, learned Advocate General, learned counsel for the second respondent in W. P. No. 2902 of 1994 and the learned counsel representing the interveners.

7. The main question arising for consideration is whether there is any Constitutional or legal inhibition against the State Government organising Khula Manch to dispose of grievances and complaints of members of Housing Cooperative Societies vis a vis action or inaction of the Societies or their Presidents. In Writ Petition No. 2902 of 1994, there are averments in relation to Khula Manch at Indore. Since none of the parties interested in that Khula Manch is before us, we do not propose to deal with those averments. The attack on Khula Manch levelled in W. P. No. 2902 of 1994 is based on the manner in which Khula Manch at Bhopal was conducted and the alleged unlawful treatment meted out to the first petitioner and father of the second petitioner. Father of the second petitioner has not filed writ petition. Second petitioner has not filed an affidavit. However, since these allegations regarding Bhopal Khula Manch form the corner-stone of that writ petition as well as Writ Petition 3545 of 1994, we will first deal with the factual controversy regarding Khula Manch held at Bhopal.

8. The averments in the writ petition No. 2902 of 1994 can be summarised as follows :

First petitioner is the President of a Housing Co-operative Society. The second respondent created an atmosphere of terror at the Khula Manch, behaved as a dictator issuing directions and directed arrest of office bearers of the Societies, insulted and humiliated them and their signatures were taken forcibly. Second respondent asked the first petitioner why he was not allotting plots to the complaining members to which he replied that he had expelled 11 members as they were not eligible for allotment and that the complainants had raised disputes before the Deputy Registrars under the provisions of the Act and they were pending. Police Officers present at the Khula Manch on 10-6-1994 arrested the first petitioner at 6.30 p.m. as per instructions of the second respondent but the arrest was actually recorded by Govindpura Police Station as having taken place at Kasturba Hospital, far away from Ravindra Bhawan where Khula Manch was held, produced him before the Additional District Magistrate (Executive), Bhopal only on 12-8-1994 showing arrest under Section 151, Criminal Procedure Code and charged under Sections 107/116 of the Code and he was released by the Magistrate within 48 hours of arrest on furnishing security on executing a bond for keeping peace.

9. The contents of the returns can be summarised as follows :

There are complaints of gross irregularities, corruption and illegal accumulation of wealth on the part of Presidents and office bearers of Housing Co-operative Societies. Complaints and disputes have been pending over the years without any solution and without any relief being granted to those who have been deceived and duped. Therefore a decision was taken to organise Khula Manch at various places to consider the grievances of complaining members of the societies by securing the presence of both parties and advising them to solve the grievance. Khula Manch is organised by the State Government under the supervision of the second respondent, the Minister concerned on the same pattern as Lok Adalats. Applications would be invited from aggrieved members, officers of the Department make summary enquiries, verify records and accounts of the Societies giving opportunities to office-bearers to respond to the grievances. These applications are taken up at Khula Manch giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. No orders are passed by or at the instance of the second respondent in the Khula Manch. Both the parties would be called to the dais where the second respondent and the officers of the Department are present and efforts are made to solve the problems mutually. Where the President and Office Bearers of a Society agree to any solution, their consent would be taken in writing. In appropriate cases of malpractice directions would be given to competent authority to initiate action under law. The proceedings are entirely consensual and no force or threat or coercion is exercised. Allegations of humiliation and insult are not true. Nobody's signature is taken by intimidation or use of force. No direction is issued to any police officer to arrest anyone.

10. The averments regarding the alleged illegalities committed by the second respondent, officers of the Government and the Police Officers have been denied in the various returns. The first petitioner relies on certain newspaper reports, the correctness of which is denied by the respondents who in turn rely on certain other newspaper reports the correctness of which is denied by the first petitioner. The petitioners also rely on certain affidavits produced by them the correctness of which is denied by the respondents. In a controversy of this nature, we do not deem it prudent to place reliance on controversial newspaper reports and affidavits the contents of which are not admitted.

11. The petitioners rely on a report in 'India Today' dated 15-9-1994 at page 152. The contents of report are not accepted by the respondents. At page 152 is a photograph said to be that of the first petitioner with one of his arms held by a Police Officer and a Police Constable. This photograph, according to learned counsel for the petitioners, was taken at the moment of the first petitioner's arrest at the Khula Manch. Learned Advocate General stated that there were large number of aggrieved members present at the Khula Manch and the atmosphere was tense on account of the attitude adopted by the first petitioner. Therefore, to ease the tension, Police Officers led the petitioner out and left him there. Learned counsel for the petitioners have not been able to point out any part of the report relating to alleged arrest of the first petitioner at the Khula Manch. Therefore, the explanation offered by the learned Advocate General appears to be acceptable.

12. Certain records relating to the Police case against the first petitioner and others and the orders of the appropriate Magistrate have been produced before us. These records show that Govindpura Police received a message late in the evening on 10-8-1994 that there was commotion near the Kasturba Hospital. They rushed to the place and found a big crowd present and the first petitioner on one hand and two others on the other engaged in a furious quarrel. Apprehending commission of a cognizable offence, they arrested all the three persons under Section 151 of the Code and took them to the Police Station and produced them before the City Magistrate (Executive) on 11-8-1994. The City Magistrate (Executive) who was very busy in law and order duty passed an order directing the arrested persons to be produced on 12-8-1994. They were produced on 12-8-1994 and released on execution of bond for maintaining peace and furnishing security. We find no reason to doubt the authenticity of the contents of these documents relating to arrest on 10-8-1994. Production before the City Magistrate (Executive) on 11-8-1994 and production again on 12-8-1994 and release. Hence the main contention of the first petitioner that he was illegally arrested at the Khula Manch for not obeying the directions of the second respondent and was illegally detained in police custody for more than 24 hours and was produced before the competent Magistrate only long after the lapse of 24 hours cannot be sustained.

13. According to the petitioners, second petitioner's father was former President of a Housing Co-operative Society and he was replaced by the second petitioner. There were complaints against office-bearers of this Co-operative Society also at the Khula Manch. Second petitioner was not present though his father was present. According to the petitioners, second respondent threatened that unless second petitioner came forward, he would be arrested and thereupon the second petitioner's father went to the dais. This allegation is denied by the respondents according to whom when the name of the second petitioner was called, the second petitioner's father came forward pretending to be the second petitioner. It is further alleged by the petitioners that the second respondent uttered defamatory words and threats at the second petitioner's father and directed him to invest a part of his ill-gotten earning. These averments have been denied by the second respondent. There is no reliable material on record to persuade the Court to accept the correctness of the allegations of the second petitioner.

14. In view of what is indicated above, we are not in a position to accept as correct the allegations levelled by the petitioners in W. P. No. 2902 of 1994 regarding alleged illegalities and irregularities in the Khula Manch at Bhopal, A large number of people were involved in these disputes which touch upon powerful and entrenched Housing Cooperative Societies. Naturally passions are excited on both sides and the Government organised Khula Manch with a view to settle the disputes in the interest of the Societies and the public. It is not prudent to place any reliance on exaggerated newspaper reports in regard to Khula Manch held at Bhopal. The contention that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 21 of the Constitution have been violated must necessarily fall to the ground.

15. Section 64 of the Act provides for reference of disputes to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies for decision. There are provisions for appeal and revision. According to the petitioners, Registrar has to decide disputes in accordance with law taking into consideration the provisions of Limitation Act and Court Fees Act. The basic contention of the petitioners is that decisions are taken at the Khula Manch by the second respondent or officers of the Department and that is violative of the provisions of the Act. The petitioners have not placed any reliable documentary material before us to show that the forum of Khula Manch was used to adjudicate disputes by pronouncement of decisions by any person. As explained in the returns, Khula Manch is conceived as a forum to settle long pending and outstanding grievances by mutual consent on the pattern of Lok Adalats. Respondents have made it repeatedly clear in the return that Khula Manch is no different from Lok Adalat which is based on mutual consent of both the parties. It is clear that nobody is obliged to give consent for settlement of any grievance or dispute. Consent is purely voluntary. In these circumstances, we rejected the contention that organising Khula Manch is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provision.

16. There is no reason to apprehend that Khula Manchs to be organised in future are likely to violate any law. We have no doubt that the State Government and the respondents who are alerted to the contentions raised in these writ petitions would take all care to ensure that Khula Manch rests on the basis of mutuality and mutual consent and the participating Ministers or Government Officers play a purely inspiring and mediatory role.

17. In these circumstances, we find no merit in W. P. No. 2902 of 1994, we find no merit in the apprehensions expressed by the petitioner in W. P. No. 3346 of 1994. We find no justification to issue any direction of the nature sought in W. P. No. 3133 of 1994. All the writ petitions are dismissed but without costs.