Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 395 (HP)

DHANO CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY v. STATE OF H. P.

2005-10-26

LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, SURJIT SINGH

body2005
JUDGMENT Surjit Singh, J. (Oral):- Heard. The petitioner is a Cooperative Society. Its accounts were audited by a person, authorized by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for the years 1999-2000 and 2001, apparently under the provisions of Section 61 of the H.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1968. Audit report was submitted to the Registrar. As per that Report, the Ex-Secretary of the Society, caused loss to the Society by over calculating the interest payable to the members of the Society and also embezzled certain amount of money. The Co-operative Society is aggrieved by the report. It may be noticed that earlier also, the accounts of the Society, in respect of the aforesaid two cooperative years were audited and the Society was not satisfied even with the result of those audits. A copy of the latest audit report was sent to the petitioner-Society, as per requirement of Section 64 of the aforesaid Act, requiring it to explain the defects/irregularities noticed by the Auditors, as pointed out in the report. The petitioner-Society, instead of offering any explanation to the Registrar, has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition, challenging the correctness of the audit itself. A prayer has been made that the audit, already conducted, be quashed and re-auditing ordered. 2. As a matter of fact, the Co-operative Society, as per requirement of Section 64 of the Act, has only been asked to explain the defects and irregularities noticed in its accounts, during the course of audit, conducted by respondents No. 3 and 4. They should have offered explanation to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, was then supposed to have passed an appropriate order, after taking into account the explanation. In case, the Registrar did not feel satisfied with the explanation, he would have directed the Society to remove the irregularities and defects. If, the Society were dissatisfied by the direction of the Registrar, it could have filed an appeal to the State Government, under sub-rule (3) of Rule 87 of the HP. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1971. Therefore, in our considered view, the writ petition is not maintainable. 3. In any case, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, has ordered the re-auditing of the accounts, vide letter dated 22nd January, 2005 (Annexure R-1) placed on the record. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1971. Therefore, in our considered view, the writ petition is not maintainable. 3. In any case, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, has ordered the re-auditing of the accounts, vide letter dated 22nd January, 2005 (Annexure R-1) placed on the record. The petitioner-Society has been given the option to select any auditor, from the panel of the Auditors maintained by the Registrar and to get its accounts audited from him for the aforesaid two co-operative years 1999-2000 and 2000-01. In view of this new development, the relief claimed by the writ petitioner, in the petition, does not survive. 4. As a result of the above stated legal and factual position, the writ petition is dismissed.