Co-operation, Marketing and Textile Department

I would like the Top echelon in dept. to know that the lower rungs instead of assisting the people approaching them ( this is from the Co-op Hsg. Scty members ) in a timely manner , just delay or bluntly ignore the matters put forward.
Examples from real a situation, where legally valid documentation is on hand implicating the concerned.
1 ) The Mg. Com. of the Hsg. Scty. was removed by the Dy. Regr. after the process u/s 78(1) of MCSA for several reasons incl Norn filing of M20 Bonds as applicable in the period from 2006, mismanagement etc. & an Administrator appointed. The Adminstrator simply milked the Scty for about 18 months , incl irrgularly misappropriating 2 Fd's amounting to about 80000/- The audit report as submitted to the concerned Dy. Regr. clearly mentions the same , however No action was taken to recover the same over last Eight Years. Incidentally the Div. Jt. Regr. had passed an order u/s 148(3) where he has named the Deposed Mg. Com. & the Administrator u/s 146 -147 of MCSA incl. secreting of Documents.
2 ) The Accounts of the same Deposed Mg. Com. were ordered to be audited u/s 83 of the MCSA , however despite there being a Mah. Govt. Directive regarding mandatory M20 bonds by Mg. Com. prior to 2012 , the said officer has questioned the applicablity of M20 bonds vis a vis the Unauthorised status of the Deposed Mg. Com., acts & deeds. The Dy. Regr. has directly ignored the legally valid objections of the Scty. & without any reasoning asked the scty, to approach the courts to deceide on the matter.
Incidentally the officer u/s 83 has also filed his report after more than Nine months & stated that he had taken an extension. The date & proof of such extension has been blocked out without any specific date.
3 ) Subsequent to the above the said deposed Mg. Com. persons also forged a Mah. Govt. Directive u/s 79(a) to call for a Spl. Gen. Body Meeting to Appoint a Spl. Redev. Committee , wherein in the Forged Document the Role of the Legally Elected Mg. Com. has been removed to support their demand. This shows that the Co-op dept. is Not functioning to uphold the law despite of solid documented proof.
No action has been taken despite concrete evidence, so the fate of many where such documented evidence is Not available can only be left to imagination.