BEEDHA SINGH Vs. DISTRICT REGISTRAR CO OP SOC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Beedha Singh was served with a. notice dated 17-7-1976, issued by the Tahsildar under Rule 236 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Rules (Aunexure-4 to the writ petition), informing him that a sum of Rs. 28,605-60 p. plus interest plus costs was due from him and that he should appear before him on 24-7-1976. The notice further mentioned that in case the petitioner did not appear, as directed, necessary orders for his arrest and for attachment and auction of his properties would be issued. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) Petitioner claims to be the Cashier of a Co-operative Society known as Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Nagla Chhotti, District Mathura (hereinafter referred to as the Samiti). In its turn, the said Samiti is a member of the Zila Sahakari Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Bank). Primary object of the Samiti was to advance loans to its members. In due course the Samiti used to forward the loan applications to its members to the Bank and the Dank, after scrutinising and sanctioning the same used to transfer the amounts applied for to the current account of the Samiti. The Samiti thereafter paid the amount of the concerned members by means of cheques. The petitioner claims that he never took any loan either from the Samiti or from the Bank. However, the Assistant Development Officer, Co-operative Societies was prejudiced against him. He accordingly lodged a first information report on 30-12-1975 at Police Station Sahabad alleging that the petitioner and the Chairman of the Samiti had embezzled the funds of the Samiti. Thereafter Secretary of the Bank also made a reference under Section 19(2) of the U. P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973 to the Registrar, Societies, Lucknow, claiming a sum of Rs. 25529/- from the petitioner. Additional Registrar (Consumer Co-operative Societies), acting under Rule 230 of the Rules, made an order dated 6-6-1976 appointing the Deputy Registrar, Societies, Agra Region, as Arbitrator for deciding the said dispute. While the said arbitration case was pending and before any award could be made, District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mathura, in collusion with the Secretary of the Bank, wrote to the Collector requiring him to recover a sum of Rs. 28,605-60 p. from the respondents. In pursuance of the said request, the Tahsildar issued the impugned notice on 17-7-1976. The petitioner claims that, in the circumstances, neither any Bank loan nor any other Co-operative dues could be recovered from the petitioner unless and until the Deputy Registrar, Societies, Agra Region, who had been appointed to act as an Arbitrator for resolving the dispute, has given his award.

(3.) Sri Mohan Singh Sharma, Additional District Co-operative Officer, Mathura, has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents. According to him petitioner Beedha Singh had obtained loans from the Samiti and on 20-6-1976 a sum of Rs. 1,675/- towards principal amount of short-term loan and Rs. 2,500/- towards principal amount of mid-term loan were due against him. Besides this, be as Cashier of the Samiti had recovered loans from 13 members of the Samiti on 28-6-1973 and had kept the cash balance amounting to Rs. 15,685/- with him. He neither deposited the said cash with the Bank nor did he hand it over to the Samiti. In due course proceedings under Section 95-A of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 were initiated against the petitioner because on record he was found to be a heavy defaulter. The respondents further claimed that it was not necessary for them to have obtained an award before initiating proceedings under Section 95-A of the Co-operative Societies Act. The respondents, therefore, claim that there is nothing illegal in the recovery sought to be effected by the Tahsildar and, assert that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed by him. Section 95-A of the Co-operative Societies Act runs thus: -