Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1111 (PNJ)

Gurbax Kaur v. State of Punjab

2012-08-28

RANJIT SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.: - The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing order dated 26.6.2000, (Annexure P-3) and order dated 7.10.2010 (Annexure P-7) and thereafter for issuing direction to respondent No.2 to hear and decide the revision petition i.e. Annexure P-6 in accordance with law. 2. The petitioner is a Member of Powal Cooperative Agriculture Service Society Ltd, Powal (respondent No.4). The petitioner states that she has been getting loans from the Society regularly and was regular in returning the same. As per the petitioner, she was never advanced any loan, unless the earlier loan taken was cleared by her. On 2.7.1996, the petitioner took loan of Rs.14,000/- and after returning the same, she took another loan of Rs.2200/- on 8.2.1997 and yet another loan of Rs.14080/- on 5.2.1997. Similarly, she took another loans, reference to which is made in the petition. 3. Parkash Chand was the Secretary of the Society, who had issued certain bills regarding some fertilizer bags of urea and DAP. Husband of the petitioner was getting this fertilizer and the sale was duly entered in the register of the Society. Secretary, Parkash Chand, died and dispute arose regarding return of the loan amount before taking fertilizer loan in June 1999. It is alleged that Parkash Chand did not enter the recovery receipt from the petitioner in the cash book nor deposited the same in the concerned Branch of the Cooperative Bank. As per the petitioner, he had misappropriated the said amount. 4. Since the dispute arose between the petitioner and the Society, the matter was referred to the Arbitrator, who found that the petitioner had returned the loan. This award was set-aside on an appeal and the Society was directed to raise a dispute against the petitioner and against L.Rs of Parkash Chand. Reference was made by the Society for recovery of Rs.64,380/- as principal and Rs.36,620/- as interest and further Rs.10,100/- also as interest, making a total of Rs.1,11,100/-. 5. Respondent No.3 appointed Inspector, Milk Supply, Hoshiarpur, as Arbitrator, who gave his award on 4.8.2004. The Arbitrator held the petitioner liable to pay the amount to the Society but exonerated late Parkash Chand. As per the petitioner, this award is based on no evidence. 5. Respondent No.3 appointed Inspector, Milk Supply, Hoshiarpur, as Arbitrator, who gave his award on 4.8.2004. The Arbitrator held the petitioner liable to pay the amount to the Society but exonerated late Parkash Chand. As per the petitioner, this award is based on no evidence. The petitioner accordingly filed an appeal against this award, which was accepted on 27.7.2006 and L.Rs of late Secretary Parkash Chand were held liable to pay the amount to the Society. 6. This time, L.Rs of late Secretary Parkash Chand challenged the appellate order by filing a revision before Secretary, Cooperation. However, this revision petition was sent to the office of R.C.S, Punjab, in view of the law laid down by this Court in Kamal Pal Vs. The Additional Registrar (I) Cooperative Societies, Punjab and others, 2001(2) PLJ 454 . The revision petition was then entrusted to the Additional Registrar (D), who allowed the same on 28.8.2008 and remanded the case to respondent No.3 for fresh decision of the appeal after giving due effective opportunity of hearing to the parties. The appeal thereafter remained pending before the Appellate Authority, who ordered an enquiry to be made into it but before getting the result, set-aside the appellate order, Annexure P-2. The appeal filed by the petitioner against this order was rejected on 31.3.2010, whereafter the petitioner approached respondent No.2 by filing a revision petition under Section 69 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act (for short, “the Act”) for settingaside the order, Annexure P-5 and for restoring the order, Annexure P-2. The Special Secretary, Cooperation, has transferred the revision petition to R.C.S., Punjab, for decision vide his order dated 7.10.2010. The petitioner has challenged this order primarily on the ground that powers of the Registrar have been conferred on Assistant Registrars under Sections 55 and 56 of the Act in exercise of power under Section 3(3) of the Act. Respondent No.3 had appointed Arbitrator, exercising the powers of Registrar. Appeal against this decision by the Arbitrator is competent before the Registrar. The powers under Section 68 of the Act are not conferred on the Assistant Registrar. Accordingly, the Registrar could hear the appeal himself or authorise the Assistant Registrar to hear the appeal against the award passed by the Arbitrator. The Registrar is stated to have delegated his powers to the officer who appointed Arbitrator to decide the dispute. The powers under Section 68 of the Act are not conferred on the Assistant Registrar. Accordingly, the Registrar could hear the appeal himself or authorise the Assistant Registrar to hear the appeal against the award passed by the Arbitrator. The Registrar is stated to have delegated his powers to the officer who appointed Arbitrator to decide the dispute. Since the appeal in this case was heard by the Assistant Registrar as delegatee of the Registrar in view of circular dated 9.6.1971, so the revision against his order, being a delegatee of Registrar would not be competent before Registrar and can only be heard by the Secretary, Cooperation. 7. This precise submission made by counsel was noticed while issuing notice of motion. In Brij Lal Vs. The State of Punjab and others, 1973 P.L.J 462, it is observed:- “Section 69 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act clearly vests the revisional power in the State Government where the order sought to be revised passed under appeal has not been passed by the State Government or in other words where the order sought to be revised passed in appeal has been passed by the Registrar or his delegatee, and the power of revision in cases where the appellate order is not passed by the Registrar, but by an authority subordinate to him, not in the capacity of the delegatee mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 68 of the Act would lie in the Registrar. The words “as the case may be” are sufficiently indicative of the intention of the Legislature that the appellate authority will not exercise the revisional power against its own orders passed in appeal, but an authority higher than the appellate authority is competent to exercise the revisional powers even in the case where the first appeal has been provided under sub-section (1) of Section 68 of the Act. If an appeal is preferred under Section 68 of the Act to the State Government, the State Government will have no revisional power under Section 69 of the Act against the order passed in appeal, and in case an order in appeal under Section 68 of the Act has been passed by the Registrar, the Registrar has no power of revision against the order passed in appeal. 8. Similar view is expressed in Baldev Singh Vs. The State of Punjab and others, 1977 P.L.J. 484. 8. Similar view is expressed in Baldev Singh Vs. The State of Punjab and others, 1977 P.L.J. 484. However, another Division Bench of this Court, in Kamal Pal’s case (supra) has explained and distinguished the ratio of law in Brij Lal’s case (supra). In this regard, the Court has held as under:- “7. When Brij Lal’s case (supra) was decided, there was in operation a notification dated 12.9.1963 issued by the State Government under Section 3(3) of the Act by which the Assistant Registrars/Deputy Registrars had been conferred the powers exercisable by the Registrar including one under Section 68 of the Act. It was under these circumstances that in Brij Lal’s case (supra) it was held that Deputy Registrar while deciding the appeal was exercising the power of the Registrar as a delegatee. In the latest notification dated 21.3.1978, Assistant Registrar had not been given power of the Registrar by the State Government which are exercisable by the Registrar under Section 68 of the Act.” 9. It is accordingly observed that the observations in Brij Lal’s case (supra) were mainly made in view of notification dated 12.9.1963 issued by the State Government under Section 3(3) of the Act, whereby the Assistant Registrar and Deputy Registrar were conferred with the powers exercisable by the Registrar including the one under Section 68 of the Act. It was because of this that this Court in Brij Lal’s case (supra) has held that Deputy Registrar while deciding the appeal was exercising the power of Registrar as a delegatee. As noticed in Kamal Pal’s case (supra), Assistant Registrar has not been given power of Registrar in terms of the latest notification issued on 21.3.1978, which can be exercised by the Registrar under Section 68 of the Act. The counsel for the petitioner accordingly contends that there is a conflict between the ratio laid down in Brij Lal’s case (supra) and the one in the case of Kamal Pal’s case (supra). The Counsel contends that there is no change in the situation, so far as delegation of power of Registrar to Assistant Registrar is concerned, ever since the date of the judgement in the case of Brij Lal’s case (supra). 10. This argument apparently is raised without placing on record any material to show that notification dated 12.9.1963 is still in operation. The said notification is also not on record. 10. This argument apparently is raised without placing on record any material to show that notification dated 12.9.1963 is still in operation. The said notification is also not on record. Even the subsequent notification dated 21.3.1978, as referred to in Kamal Pal’s case (supra) is not on record. The effect of these notifications as on date, therefore, can not be ascertained in any manner. 11. There is no apparent conflict noticed in the views expressed by this Court in the case of Brij Lal (supra) and Kamal Pal (supra). At the most, the ratio of law laid down in Brij Lal’s case (supra) has been explained in Kamal Pal’s case (supra) on the basis of subsequent notification, which is not available for examination to see if the notification issued earlier in the year 1963 would still hold the field. In any event, the order passed by the Cooperative Secretary has not determined any lis between the parties in any manner. It is an innocuous order, transferring the revision petition filed before respondent No.2 to the Court of Registrar, Cooperative Societies. There is no right determined in this case, which is an order of transfer only. The petitioner can raise any such objection before the Registrar on the grounds as are pleaded here. No case for either referring the issue for decision to a larger Bench or for interfering in exercise writ jurisdiction is made out. 12. The stand of the State has been that the revision petition under Section 69 of the Act against the order passed by the Assistant Registrar is maintainable before the Registrar and in this regard, reference is also made to an administrative order No.PA(FCC)/ 207/3652 dated 27.6.2007, which is on the basis of a judgement of this Court in Kamal Pal’s case (supra). 13. Counsel for respondent Nos.6 to 8 has sought support from the view expressed in The Healone Laboratory Manufacturing Workshop Cooperative Industrial Society Ltd. Vs. Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab and others, [2010(5) Law Herald (P&H) 3680] : 2010 (4) RCR (Civil) 235, where this Court, by making reference to notification No.1669-C, V.78/6450, dated 21.3.1978, has held that in exercise of power conferred under Section 3(3) of the Act, the Government has conferred the power of Registrar on Additional Registrar, Joint Registrar and Deputy Registrar etc. Even the Joint Registrar is held to have jurisdiction to entertain revision petition. Even the Joint Registrar is held to have jurisdiction to entertain revision petition. It is held that the Government has conferred powers of Registrar on Additional Registrar to entertain revision petition and to decide the same in accordance with law. Obviously, thus, the Registrar would have power to entertain revision petition. Reference can also be made to a decision in the case of Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (CWP 1579 of 2002), where the same notification was considered. 14. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.