ORDER : 1. The above appeal has been filed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 30-08-1996 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.16605-M of 1993 where under the learned Single Judge while affirming the fixation of the remuneration of the Receiver at Rs. 3,000/- per month from the date he was appointed, namely, 01.02.1993 to be reasonable, rejected the challenge made to the order passed on 25.11.1993 and thereby also rejecting the request of the appellant to enhance the rate of remuneration. 2. When disputes arose between the parties relating to the Hoshiarpur Express Transport Company Limited resulting in the passing of an order under Section 145/146, Criminal Procedure Code, the Executive Magistrate, Hoshiarpur appears to have appointed on 13.01.1993 the appellant, who was the then Tahsildar, Hoshiarpur as Receiver. Pursuant to the same, a further order came to be passed on 25.01.1993 allowing remuneration in the form of commission out of the income of the Company at 2%, meaning thereby from the total receipts of the company. 3. An application appears to have been moved before the High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1692-M of 1993 challenging the appointment of the Tahsildar as Receiver and ordering interim attachment. While dealing with the said application, a learned Single Judge of the High Court appears to have passed an order on 02.11.1993 wherein it was held that no error was committed in the appointment of the Receiver, but, at the same time, it was held therein that the order granting remuneration to the Receiver insofar as it fixed at 2% commission fee was on the higher side and to this extent, while quashing that part of the order fixing remuneration, directed the Magistrate to fix remuneration afresh commensurate with the status of the Receiver. Thereupon, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate cum Executive Magistrate, Hoshiarpur appears to have passed a fresh order dated 25.11.1993 fixing a monthly remuneration of Rs. 3,000/- from the date on which he was originally appointed and directed the Receiver to adjust the remuneration/commission fee drawn already as per the said order passed and also refund any excess amount drawn, over and above the same. 3,000/- from the date on which he was originally appointed and directed the Receiver to adjust the remuneration/commission fee drawn already as per the said order passed and also refund any excess amount drawn, over and above the same. As against the said order, the appellant approached the High Court by filing Criminal Miscellaneous Application in Criminal Miscellaneous No.16605-M of 1993 invoking the powers under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code The learned Single Judge who passed the order under challenge in this appeal felt that the remuneration, as fixed at Rs. 3,000/- per month, was reasonable and did not call for interference. Hence the above appeal. 4. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.2752 of 2002 has been filed by Mr. Ranbir Yadav, learned counsel on behalf of one Sujan Singh Sahota claiming to be the present Chairman appointed as per the ultimate and final orders passed in the proceedings under Section 145/146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the place of the erstwhile Chairman-respondent No.2. Objection is taken to this application by the learned counsel for respondent No.4 in the special leave petition, one of the Directors of the Transport Company. The objection seems to be of no merit but we do not desire to burden this order with considerations of those claims, having regard to the limited nature of the consideration required in these proceedings, initiated at the instance of the Receiver appointed pertaining to his remuneration. What is required is a consideration as to the legality and propriety of the order under challenge or the reasonableness of the remuneration that has been fixed. 5. Heard Mr. K.B. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant , Mrs. Naresh Bakshi, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and Mrs. Rachna Joshi Issar, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and Mr. Ranbir Yadav for the proposed party. 6. It is seen from the factual details furnished that by appointing the appellant as Receiver, he has been placed in - charge of a concern with almost about 150 workers and 35 buses to be managed and though it is claimed by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent that the other Directors were also there, a Court appointed Receiver is a Receiver and it is his sole responsibility to manage and be answerable to the actual running of the concern during the relevant point of time. In our view, keeping into consideration volume of work, the erroneous responsibilities involved in running the concern, the ordeals to be undertaken and the actual results and targets which seem to have been achieved also, the originally fixed remuneration of 2% commission on the receipts, cannot be said to be on the higher or arbitrary side and that the orders of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Executive Magistrate and that the learned Single Judge of the High Court wherein it has been reduced to a paltry sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month cannot be approved and sustained as being either reasonable or commensurate with the actual services rendered by the Receiver. Consequently, the orders of the Executive Magistrate and that of the High Court is set aside to the extent it fixed a flat rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month and the original rate of 2% on the receipts shall stand restored. Consequently, the direction to readjust and refund the excess, as per revised rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month also goes and the sum said to have been drawn at the original rate of 2% during the period ending upto 24.11.1993 shall be considered to be in order. There is no need for any refund as directed by the subsequent orders. It is stated that the Receiver already relinquished his office as Receiver on 08.12.1993. 7. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of on the above terms. 8. In view of the above orders passed in the appeal, no separate orders are required in the application for impleadment.