RAMANLAL KESHAVLAL PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts of the case are that the petitioner was serving as a clerk with respondent No.4-Society and there was some audit objections in the year 1986. On the basis of the said audit objections, one Mr Mevada was appointed as Inquiry Officer and ultimately he submitted report and in the year 1991, the petitioner was called upon to make the payment based on the report of the Inquiry Officer. It appears that the petitioner submitted the reply. The petitioner also preferred revision application before the Additional Registrar who rejected the revision application but simultaneously directed that the amount in question may be recovered from the petitioner by filing suit before the Registrar's Board of Nominee, Mehsana. The respondent-Society preferred Arbitration Suit No.644/94 before the Registrar's Board of Nominee and ultimately on 4.1.1999, the Board of Nominee dismissed the suit on the ground that after the enquiry under section 86 of the Act, the proper procedure to be undertaken would be only under section 93 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') and not under section 96 of the said Act.However, incidentally, some observations were also made regarding the merits on the question of liability. It also appears that the respondent-Society has preferred appeal before the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal (for short, 'the tribunal') being appeal No.180 of 2000. It appears that pending the said appeal before the tribunal, the District Registrar issued show cause notice dated 28.2.2001 as to why the liability should not be fixed under section 93 of the Act. The petitioner submitted reply to the said show cause notice to the District Registrar and the matter was pending at that stage. It also appears that on 3.4.2001, the District Registrar issued another show cause notice for initiating proceedings under section 147 of the Act for breach of provisions under section 84 (4) of the Act. At that stage, the petitioner has approached this Court by preferring this petition challenging the said show cause notice under section 93 of the said Act as well as the show cause notice for taking action under section 147 of the Act being Annexures 'D' and 'F' respectively.

(2.) Mr P K Jani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying upon a decision of this Court in the case of Sardar Sahakari Mandli (in Liquidation) v. Natverlal K Shah, reported in (1979) 2 GLR p.626, inter alia, contended that the proceedings under sections 93 and 96 are for all practical purposes parallel proceedings and he submitted that once the decision is rendered under section 96 of the Act by the Registrar's Board of Nominee and against which the appeal is pending before the tribunal, it is not open to the District Registrar to re-open the issue by initiating proceedings under Section 93 of the Act and, therefore, he further submitted that the impugned action issuing show cause notice and of initiating action under section 93 of the Act is without jurisdiction.

(3.) Mr S K Jhaveri, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the respondent-society, on the other hand, submitted that the society has preferred appeal before the tribunal but as such the learned Board of Nominee dismissed the suit on the ground that the proceedings under section 96 of the Act are not competent. During the course of hearing, he also declared before the Court that he has instructions to state that the Society shall withdraw the appeal pending before the tribunal if the proceedings under section 93 of the Act are allowed to continue further. He also stated that this Court may observe simultaneously that the observations made by the learned Nominee would not come in the way of the proceedings under section 93 of the Act. Mr S K Jhaveri, learned Counsel also submitted that uptill now, a decision is not taken by the District Registrar.