DAMODAR DAS Vs. CO-OPERATIVE SEEDS STORE SAKIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by a member of the Co-operative Seeds Store, Sakit, District Etah, in which the prayer is as follows:

(2.) The opposite parties in the application are: (1) The Co-operative Seeds Store, Sakit, District Etah; (2) The District Co-operative Officer, Etah; (3) The Registrar Co-operative Societies, Lucknow; (4) The Collector of Etah, and; (5) The State of Uttar Pradesh.

(3.) The relevant facts are these: The applicant is a member of the Co-operative Seeds Store, Sakit, and in his capacity as such he borrowed 200 maunds of wheat and 10 maunds of barley on 7-11-1950. The main terms of the agreement of loan were that the applicant was to return the quantity of grain borrowed together with 25 per cent. by the 31-5-1951. It this total quantity of the grain was not returned by the 31-5-1951, or within such period as might be extended the applicant was to be liable to pay the price of the grain with a penalty up to 50 per cent. per annum till the date of recovery of the amount. The actual amount of the penalty was to be determined by the Provincial Marketing" Federation. Before the expiry of the period fixed for the return of the grain, the applicant made an application to the District Co-operative Officer, Etah, for extension of time till the 30th June. 1951. The applicant states that such extension was granted to him. He goes on to say that within this extended period he sent 250 maunds of wheat and 12 maunds and 20 seers of barley to the Co-operative Seeds Store, Sakit, but when the grain reached the Seeds Store the person in charge of it refused to accept it saying that the godown had been closed owing to the rainy season, and so the wheat and barley came back to the applicant. It is alleged that on 12-12-1951, the applicant received a letter from the District Co-operative Officer, Etah, informing him that the applicant had incurred the penalty provided for in the agreement and should pay the price of the grain with the penalty. He was told that in default the money would be realised through the Collector as arrears of land revenue. Subsequently, a requisition was sent by the District Co-operative Officer to the Collector for the recovery of Rs. 6,289/9/6 from the applicant as arrears of land revenue and in compliance with this requisition the Collector attached the amount in the hands of the Superintending Engineer, P. W. D. out of a sum of about Rs. 40,000/- which the Superintending Engineer had to pay to the applicant in lieu of certain work done by the applicant for the State Government as a contractor. This attachment took place on 10-3-1952. The applicant offers to deposit in the godowns of the Co-operative Seeds Store the quantity of the grain borrowed by him with an additional 25 per cent. or to pay its price. But he disputes his liability to pay any penalty or interest on the ground that he had sent the grain to the Co-operative Seeds Store within the extended time allowed to him. According to him it was the fault of the Seeds Store that it did not accept the grain offered by the applicant. It is also stated that the amount of the penalty has not been determined by the Provincial Marketing Federation. He disputes the power of the District Co-operative Officer to determine the amount of penalty.