JUDGMENT K.M. Dayal, J. - The petitioner was the Chairman of the Committee of Management of Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd., respondent no. 2. There was some partibandi in the Society. The petitioner received a notice on 17th July, 1973 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) levelling charges that the petitioner has misused the property of the society ; he misutilised 22 litres of petrol and verified the signatures of wrong persons on some important papers. By this notice the petitioner was required to appear before the Registrar, Cane Co-operative Societies, U. P., Lucknow on 8th August, 1973. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the aforesaid notice and appeared before the Registrar Cane Co operative Societies on 8th August, 1973. According to para 12 of the writ petition the Registrar was satisfied that no case had been made out and as such he directed that the charges levelled against the petitioner be dropped. 2. Again the petitioner was served with another notice dated 11th September, 1973 on 18th September, 1973. By that notice the petitioner was required to submit his explanation to the Registrar, Cane Co-operative Societies within a week of receipt of the notice and appear before the respondent No. 11 or in the office of the Cane Commissioner on 25th September, 1973 for personal hearing. Notice was in respect of certain charges regarding removal of 220 bags of Urea to his place instead of stocking it in the godown of the Samiti. it was also alleged that he has sold Urea at a rate higher than the rate fixed. By another letter, dated 15th September, 1973, the dated fixed in the notice, dated 11-9-78, was changed and the petitioner was directed to appear on 29th instead of 26th September, 1973. This notice was served on the petitioner on 19th September, 1973 The petitioner rushed to Lucknow and reached the office of the U. P. Cane Commissioner on 20th at directed in the letter dated 15th September, 1973 but respondent no. 1 was not available as he was out of station. In para 17 of the . writ petition the petitioner has sworn that the petitioner waited for the respondent on 20th and 21st September, 1973 but he did not return, consequently he came back. Thereafter the petitioner sent an explanation to the notice dated 11th September, 1973, on 25th September, 1973 to the Registrar Cane Co-operative Societies, Lucknow. In para 17 of the . writ petition the petitioner has sworn that the petitioner waited for the respondent on 20th and 21st September, 1973 but he did not return, consequently he came back. Thereafter the petitioner sent an explanation to the notice dated 11th September, 1973, on 25th September, 1973 to the Registrar Cane Co-operative Societies, Lucknow. The petitioner did not received any information nor any other intimation for personal hearing. An order dated 16th November, 1973 was, however, passed by the Registrar, Cane Co-operative Societies, Lucknow, which was served on the petitioner on 29th November, 1973. That order, annexure.-6 to the writ petition has been challenged in the present writ petition. It was specifically alleged in paras 20 and 30 of the writ petition that the petitioner was not given any hearing and the order (Annexure 6 to the petition) wrongly mentioned that the petitioner was heard on 25th September, 1973 and made certain statement regarding distribution of Urea etc. The main ground of the petition is that the petitioner was entitled to hearing and hearing having been grants for 20th September, 1373, which could not materialise, the petitioner ought to have been given another opportunity of hearing to explain hi position. It is, however, argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the averment made in annexure-6 to the writ petition that the petitioner was heard, is absolutely incorrectly and false. 3. Two counter affidavits have been filed in the instant case. One counter affidavit has been filed by Hari Singh Verma. who is Secretary of the Co-operative cane Development Union Ltd. Iqbalpur (Roorkee), respondent no. V. The averment made in para 20 of the writ petition that the petitioner was denied in para 21 of that affidavit. The averments made in para 30 of the writ petition have been replied in para 37 of that affidavit where the denoncot has sworn that this fact was not in the knowledge of the deponent. Another counter affidavit has been filed by Sri J. P. Khare, Cane Development Inspector (Law), office of the Cane Commissioner. Para 20 of the writ petition has been replied in para 21 of the counter affidavit which merely stated that the order was legal, valid and in accordance with law. Except denial no reply was given to the fact about personal hearing. Para 30 is replied in para 37 of the counter affidavit. Para 20 of the writ petition has been replied in para 21 of the counter affidavit which merely stated that the order was legal, valid and in accordance with law. Except denial no reply was given to the fact about personal hearing. Para 30 is replied in para 37 of the counter affidavit. The allegations are that the petitioner personally appeared before respondent not on 25th September. 1973. Para 37 is verified on the basis of the perusal of record whereas para 21 has been verified on the basts of lend advice None of these relevant paras have been verified on personal knowledge Learned Standing Counsel pointed out .paragraphs 14, 17. 18 and 10 of his counter affidavit. All these paragraphs are verified from perusal of record and not on the personal knowledge-of respondent no. 1 or even Sri IP Khare In paragraph 14 of the said affidavit it is mentioned that 25th extern her 1973 was wrongly typed and the date fixed for personal hearing therefore the Registrar was 20th September, 1973. In para 17 of the affidavit he has sworn that the petitioner appeared before respondent no. 1 on 21st and September 1973. In para 18 it is again mentioned that the petitioner heard on 1st September, 1973. Para 19 is also to the same effect that the petitioner was heard on 21st September, 1973 and the same day he submitted explanation to respondent no. 1. From the impugned order (annexure-6) of the writ petition we find that the order mentions about the hearing of the petitioner on 25th September, 19/3. There is no mention of any hearing on out September 1973 The letter dated 11th September, 1973 (Annexure 2 to tie writ petition) was in respect of urea (some fertilizer) worth Rs 10549 and he three challenges were in respect of urea itself. There was no charge either un, misuse of 22 litres of petrol or about verification of wrong person for pavement as mentioned in the notice dated 17th July, 1973. There was no charge either un, misuse of 22 litres of petrol or about verification of wrong person for pavement as mentioned in the notice dated 17th July, 1973. Obviously notice 11th September, 1973 was only in respect of the charges relating to sale From Annexure-6 of the writ petition it appears that the petitioner us given opportunity of hearing on 25 9-73 but alter looking to the writ petition and dae counter affidavit it is impossible to hold that the petitioner petition a 25th 1973 According to para 14 of the counter affidavit of Sri JP Khare it is clear that the date fixed was 20th September, 1973 and not September 1973. From paragraphs 18 and 19 of the said affidavit it appears that the petitioner was heard on 21st September, 1973. That date Hoes not find place in the impugned order any where. Then in paragraph 17 the aforesaid affidavit it is asserted that petitioner appeared on 21st September, as well as 25th September. 1973 and he filed written statement on 21st September, 1973. 4. All these variations in the stand of respondent no. 1 create a grave doubt " The clear averments made in paragraphs 20 and 30 of the writ petition could have been denied by respondent no. 1 by filing his own affidavit. They not be rebutted merely by an affidavit of Sri J P. Khare who also does not seem to have any personal knowledge about such hearing. In the circumstances we are inclined to accept that after 20th September, 1973.no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. Sub-section (2) of Section 68 of the U. P. Co operative Societies Act reads as under : "(2) Where an inquiry is made under sub section (1) the Registrar may, after affording the person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard, make an order of surcharge requiring him to restore the property or repay the money or any part thereof, with interest at such rate or to pay contribution and costs or compensation to such an extent, as the Registrar may consider just and equitable." The order could have been passed against the petitioner only after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to him. The averment made in para 17 of the writ petition that the respondent no. The averment made in para 17 of the writ petition that the respondent no. 1 was not present even on 21st September, 1973 has not been specifically denied in the corresponding para 18 of the counter affidavit. It merely says that the petitioner appeared before respondent no. 1 on 2st September, 1973. That para again is not verified on personal knowledge. In the circumstances the only conclusion can be that the allegation in Annexure 6 of the writ petition that the petitioner appeared on 25th September, 1973, is wholly incorrect, Orders have been passed in violation of provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 68 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, and cannot be sustained. 5. By an interim order dated 2-9-74 the petitioner was directed to sell the remaining bags of fertilizer and keep the account of the same and inform the respondents about the details of the sale. That order was modified by another order dated 24-2-75 passed by Hon'ble Hari Swamp, J. By that order the petitioner was directed to deposit the sale proceeds of urea with respondent no. 1. The amount of security in accordance with the earlier order dated 4-12-73 was to be reduced by the amount of deposit as per order dated 24-2-75. There is no dispute that the petitioner sold 220 bags of Urea. He was liable to pay the sale proceeds of the same to respondent no. 2. In the circumstances, any amount given as security in excess of the amount payable to respondent no. 2 for sale of urea may be refunded to the petitioner. 6. In the result, the present writ petition is allowed. The order dated 16th November, 1973 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. The petitioner will be entitled to the refund of the security in excess of the amount payable by him in respect of the price of urea (fertilizer) Any amount deposited b) the petitioner towards the sale price will be adjusted towards the price of urea (fertilizer) realisable from. Parties shall bear their own costs.