MUDDABASAPPA Vs. ASST REGISTRAR OF CO OP SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the certificate (Ext.'C') issued by the Asst Registrar of Co-operative Secieties, Tumkur Sub-Diva,, Tumkur, dt.30th Octr, 1972, under S.100 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). By the said certificate, the Asst Registrar has determined that the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.713 to the Service Co-operative Society, Urdigere, Tumkur Taluk.

(2.) The complaint of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the said certificate has been issued without holding any enquiry as contem plted by sub-rule (6) of Rule 33 (B) of the Karnataka Co-op Societies Rules 1960 (hereinafter referred to. as the Rules). The said rule provides that on receipt of an application from a society referred to in sub-rule (3) fef grant of certificate under S.100 of the Act, supported by an affidavit fegarsing the demand and its urgency, the Registrar shall decide such application Within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the application by him, after causing such inquiry as to the correctness and truthfulness of the demand as he May think fit. Sub-rule(7) provides:

(3.) Though there is a discretion with the Registrar to issue notice to the borrower before taking a, decision to issue a certificate under S.100 of the Act, sub-rule (6) of the Rules makes it clear that some inquiry has to be held by the Registrar to satisfy himself about the correctness and the truthfulness of the demand made by the Society against the borrower. It is clear that when a certificate is issued under S.100 of the Act, the Society becomes entitled to recover the dues, to which the certificate refers to as an arrear of land revenue. This procedure can be resorted to without fallowing normal course of referring the dispute between the parties under S.70 Of the Act to an arbitrator. In this case, the complaint of the petitioner is that no enquiry whatsoever has been held by the Registrar. Several doeu- ments which have been produced in this ease by the Petar indicate that the authorities were not sure as to what really has been done in this case. At one stage She authorities took the view that the dispute was referred to an arbitrator under S.70 of the Act and an award has been obtained' against the petitioner, but at a later stage they themselves conceded that there was no award and' the case against the petitioner has to be dealt with only on the basis of the certificate issued under S.100 of the Act. This clearly indicates the confusion in the minds of the authorities themselves about the premises on which the petitioner is being proceeded with. It is clear from the annexures to the writ petition that the petitioner has complained about the procedure followed and asserted that he has not borrowed any money from the Society and that therefore he is not liable for the payment. As staled in the impugned certificate, the authorities did direct some sort of enquiry being held. The case of the petitioner is that no such enquiry was held and no relief was granted to him. This aspect of the matter need not hold me any further having regard to the fact that an enquiry as contemplated under Rule 33 (B) (6) cf the Rules is an enquiry before a certificate is issued under Sec.100 of the Act and not after the issuance. As I am satisfied that no enquiry whatsoever was held before the impugned certificate was issued by the Asst Registrar, which was expected of him, as required by sub-rule (6) of Rule 33 (B) of the Rules, this writ petition is entitled to succeed