RAM SINGH Vs. RECOVERY OFFICER CO OP SOC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts of this petition, directed against recovery proceedings initiated under U. P. Co-operative Societies Act against petitioners who are father and son and were Chairman and members of Atma Nirbhar Saha- kari Samiti Ltd., Mathura demonstrate misuse of power and public funds by elected office bearers of public bodies and raise the question if this Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction can interfere in favour of such person even if the order is bad for some reason.

(2.) In 1969 petitioners 1 and 2 were elected as member and Chairman of the committee of Management of the Society referred to above. No elections were held thereafter. As terms of the Committee came to an end by opera ion of law after issuance of Ordinance No. 19 of 1976, the Assistant Star superseded the committee under Section 29 of the Act and appointed an Administrator This led to removal of record, filing of complaint with Superintendent of Police, filing of writ petition etc. in this Court. But that is not of much relevance so far this petition is concerned. It, however, appears that when Administrator took over, it transpired that large amount of fund was loaned by Co-operative Bank to various persons most of whom were close relations of petitioners. Proceedings, therefore, were started by the Bank against such persons under Section 19 of the Agricultural Credit Act, 1973 as amended in 1975. Loanees were two wives of petitioner 1, his brother's wife, three of his nephews and two of their wives. Total loan advanced to these persons was approximately eighty-one thousand. None of the debtors contested recovery proceedings. When notices of Arbitration proceedings were served two of the nephews appeared, admitted the loan but stated that they had no land. The others did not appear but sent representation for fixing instalment. The Arbi- trator found that all these amounts were advanced on false cash credit basis, certified by petitioner who was the Chairman, Secretary of the Samiti stated that a resolution was passed by the Society in 1974-75 that liability to pay all these loans was of Chairman. But this resolution on page 88 was torn away by the Chairman. The Arbitrator, therefore, being satisfied that the amount bad, in fact, been appropriated by petitioner, directed recovery of amount with 18 per cent interest in seven arbitration cases from debtor, their surety and petitioners.

(3.) It has been very vehemently argued that the arbitrator committed error apparent on the face of record in fixing liability of various amounts advanced by the Society to various persons on petitioner only because petitioners were Chairman and member of the Society. The learned counsel urged that petitioners were not afforded any opportunity nor they were impleaded as such, therefore, the arbitrator acted beyond his powers in making petitioners jointly and severally liable with surety and debtors. None of the arguments appears to have any merit. The petitioners have been held liable not because they were Chairman and member only but because the Society had passed a resolution earlier in which petitioners had accepted liability to pay the amount. Further in recovery proceedings Chairman of the Society is not impleaded. The very fact that he was one of the party and WPS present in the proceedings demolishes the argument that no opportunity was afforded. If he did not avail of it he cannot be permitted to urge that the order was passed in violation of principle of natural justice. In fact every thing being admitted it is difficult to imagine what defence could have been put on his behalf. It may further be mentioned that allegation in the counter-affidavit that petitioner No. 1 was surety in three cases is not denied.