GURUDAYAL Vs. FAQUIRCHAND, MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order passed by the Board of Revenue for Madhya Pradesh dated 12 -2 -1971, by which the learned Member of the Board held that the petitioner should file a civil suit to get damages in respect of his claim against the Co -operative Marketing Society Basoda, which will hereinafter be referred to as the Society.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that he is a member of the Society and had pledged 36 bags and 35 kilograms of 'Gulabi Chana' with the Society in lieu of a loan of Rs. 1,100/. He gave instructions to the Society on 29 -6 -1964 to sell the gram in the market but be was informed that the gram had already been sold. His case is that the gram was sold malafide and for a lesser price. According to him, the price of the gram was Rs. 4,110/ -. He therefore, made an application before the Assistant Registrar, Co -operative Society on 17 -6 -1967 under section 64 of the MP Co -operative Societies Act, 1960. (which will hereinafter be called the Act) for awarding the amount due to him. The Assistant Register, however, by his order dated 17 -8 -1968 dismissed the petitioner's application. The petitioner then filed appeal before the Registrar, Co -operative Societies, which was ultimately decided by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, by his order dated 28 -5 -1969. The Joint Register held that the petitioner had been put to a loss on account of the illegal and unauthorised sale of the gram by the Society. But he did not award any amount to the petitioner on the ground that he had not specified the amount to be awarded to him.

(3.) THE petition has been resisted by Shri D.K. Katare, learned counsel for the Society, and it bas been urged that the petitioner's claim does not fall under section 64 (2) of the Act. On the other hand Shri R.A. Roman, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of a claim, like the present one, is barred under S. 82 (1) (c) of the Act. It is argued that the petitioner was a member of the Society at the time of the relevant transaction, and the dispute between the petitioner and the Society is one touching the business of the Society. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied on 1970 MPLJ SN 404; AIR 1965 SC 621 and AIR 1953 All. 465.