Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1166 (PNJ)

Raman Sharma v. State of Punjab

2000-09-26

MEHTAB S.GILL, S.S.SUDHALKAR

body2000
JUDGMENT S.S. Sudhalkar, J. - By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.2.2000, passed by the Registrar, Coop. Societies, Punjab. The said order is produced as Annexure P/5 with the writ petition. 2. The elections to the Board of Directors of Pathankot Hindu Urban Coop. Bank Limited, respondent No. 4 (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank"), were held on 8.6.,1998. The petitioner was one of the seven persons elected to the Board of Directors of the Bank. Earlier the petitioner had taken a loan from the bank. 4.6.1998 was the date of nomination and scrutiny. Petitioner contends that on that date, he went to the Bank Manager and asked him about the amount due and then deposited Rs. 75,000/- and obtained a certificate of even date copy Annexure P/6 from the Manager of the Bank. It is certified in the certificate as under :- "Certified that Shri Raman Kumar s/o Ved Parkash, Mohalla Karam Singh, Pathankot Ac. No. 1427 is not a defaulter today." 3. Actually by depositing this amount, petitioner had not re-paid the whole loan amount. It is the contention that the Managing Director threatened him that he will remove him being a defaulter and therefore, on 3.8.1998, he cleared all the loans. Vide impugned order, it was ordered that the petitioner ceases to be the Director of the bank. 4. The petitioner contends that he was not a defaulter as per the certificate and even otherwise, he has deposited the whole amount before the impugned order was passed. The details of deposit of further amounts have been mentioned in para No. 9 of Annexure R/4-1 which are as under :- Date Amount - Rs. 29.7.98 10,000/- 1-8-98 41,000/- 3-8-98 4,860/- This was the amount paid after the election. 5. Counsel for respondents No. 4 and 5 argued that the loan was taken on 18.4.1994. He has referred to Annexure R/4-3 which is a Pronote by the petitioner in favour of the bank in which he has mentioned that he received a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and has promised to re-pay the same at the rate of 18.5% in 48 monthly instalments of Rs. 6,000/- each. A copy of the application for loan is at Annexure R/4-2 which also states that the amount is re-payable on or before 48 months. Therefore, the amount was re-payable within 4 years. 2,00,000/- and has promised to re-pay the same at the rate of 18.5% in 48 monthly instalments of Rs. 6,000/- each. A copy of the application for loan is at Annexure R/4-2 which also states that the amount is re-payable on or before 48 months. Therefore, the amount was re-payable within 4 years. The loan having been taken on 18.4.1994 had to be re-paid by 18.4.1998 and if this was not re-paid by that date, then the petitioner can be said to be a defaulter. Nothing is shown as to how this argument of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 cannot be accepted. When the terms for re-payment are clear and the time set for the same is also clearly mentioned and if the amount is not re-paid within the particular time then the person taking loan is to be treated as defaulter. This being the position, on 4.6.1998, the petitioner was defaulter of the loan. 6. Counsel for the petitioner argued that when no due certificate was given, he could not be treated as defaulter. We do not agree with this preposition. When the facts are clear and not disputed and they show that on 4.6.1998 the whole amount was not paid, the certificate Annexure P/6 cannot be accepted to be correct. 7. Rule 26 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred as "the Rules"), prescribes regarding the conditions that a member of the Committee shall cease to hold office as such if he :- "a) continues to be in default in respect of any sum due from him to the co- operative society for such period as may be laid down in bye-laws. b) ceases to be a member; c) is declared insolvent; d) becomes of unsound mind; e) is convicted of an offence involving dishonestly or moral turpitude; or f) becomes subject to any disqualification which would have prevented him from seeking election, had he incurred that disqualification before election." 8. Learned counsel for respondents No. 4 and 5 relies on sub-clause (a) of rule 26, and according to him, be virtue of the said provision, the petitioner has become disqualified to be a member and his membership has ceased. The period mentioned in the Bye-Laws is one month. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 and 5 have drawn our attention to the Bye-laws also. He has referred to clause (vi) of Bye-Law 25. The period mentioned in the Bye-Laws is one month. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 and 5 have drawn our attention to the Bye-laws also. He has referred to clause (vi) of Bye-Law 25. According to this Bye-law, a member shall be eligible to be elected as Director, if he is not in default in payment of any debt due to the bank for the periof exceeding one month on which the payment fell due. The last instalment in this case, fell due in April, 1998 and therefore, even giving one months time after the date on which payment actually fell due, the petitioner had not cleared the loan and he remained defaulter and according to learned counsel for the respondents No. 4 and 5, this Bye-law read with rule 26 of the Rules will make the petitioner ineligible to hold the office and will automatically cease to hold his office. He has relied on the case of Jai Karan Singh v. State of Haryana, 1996 PLJ 10. The D.B. in that case was dealing with the analogous provisions of the Haryana Rule and Rule-28 is reproduced hereunder :- "28. Removal from Membership of Committee - (1). A member of the Committee shall cease to hold office as such if he :- (a) continues to be in default in respect of any sum due from him to any Cooperative Society for a periof of three months. (b) to (f). xx xx xxx xxx" 9. The only difference in the Punjab Rules and Haryana Rules quoted above, is that instead of period mentioned in Bye-laws, the Haryana Rules prescribe the period of three months. It is held in that case as under;- "4. What is the position in the present case ? If is the admitted position that an amount of Rs. 13,900/- had become due from the petitioner on January 13, 1993. He admittedly did not pay this money till August, 1994. Consequently, the default had continued for more than three months. The petitioner had earned the disqualification to continue as a member of the Committee under Rule 28. The action of the respondents in ordering his removal from the membership of the Managing Committee, is thus, in strict conformity with the provision of the Rule." 10. Consequently, the default had continued for more than three months. The petitioner had earned the disqualification to continue as a member of the Committee under Rule 28. The action of the respondents in ordering his removal from the membership of the Managing Committee, is thus, in strict conformity with the provision of the Rule." 10. The Punjab Rule read with bye-laws is very clear and it is, therefore, found that the Registrar has rightly declared the petitioner to be defaulter. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that no notice was given and, therefore, principles of natural justice stood violated. However, when petition under Rule 26 was filed by the Managing Director, the Counsel for the petitioner was heard as is apparent from the impugned order, Annexure P/5. 12. In view of this position, we do not find any infirmity with the order. The writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Writ Petition dismissed.