PATI TIWARI Vs. SADHAN SAHKARI SAMITI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order passed in appeal under Section 98 of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the District Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U. P., has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Sadhan Sahkari Samiti, Lohramau district Sultanpur initiated recovery proceedings against the petitioner in respect of a loan which was said to have been taken by the petitioner in repayment whereof he committed default. The petitioner approached the Arbitrator under Section 70 of the Act, which matter was referred to the Additional District Cooperative Officer, Sultanpur and thus the Additional District Cooperative Officer was appointed as Arbitrator under the orders of the Registrar. Before the Arbitrator, the petitioner as well as Sadhan Sahkari Samiti laid their claim. Petitioner's main contention was that, firstly, he was not the person entitled for having a loan to the extent which was said to have been granted to him, as he was a landless person and secondly, he has not taken this loan. The sole Arbitrator recorded a finding that the Lekhpal has made the entry in the Society's register in which the petitioner has been shown to be possessed of 10 acres of land. He has made this entry for covering up the loan which was granted to the petitioner although he was not entitled for the same. The sole Arbitrator, however, found that the loan amount was utilized by the petitioner but in view of the illegality and irregularity deliberately committed by the Secretary, he passed an award directing that the Secretary has caused harm to the Society and, therefore, the principal amount should be realised from the Secretary of the Society. So far as the interest and other principal amount was concerned, that was directed to be realised from the petitioner. Aggrieved by this award, the Society filed an appeal before the District Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sultanpur, who, vide the impugned order, allowed the appeal and directed the amount due to be recovered from the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the appeal before the District Assistant Registrar was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 98 (1) (h), as the appeal lies to the Cooperative Tribunal. The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the finding has been recorded that the petitioner was a landless person and, therefore, was not entitled for the loan granted to him, no recovery can be made from him. Apart from this, it has also been urged that it was the manipulation made by the Secretary of the Samiti in collusion with the Lekhpal in so far as the petitioner was shown to be a person possessed of certain land, as such the recovery should be made from the Secretary and not from the petitioner.