GURMEET KAUR Vs. ADDL REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the order dated 31.08.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition on the short ground of delay and laches. The brief facts are that the writ petitioner-appellant (for short "the appellant") was charged with embezzlement of funds of his employer cooperative society of which he was the Secretary during the relevant period. The loss caused became subject matter of adjudication in arbitration proceedings initiated under Section 56 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") against the appellants and an award was pronounced on 14.02.1995 (P-2) against the appellant for recovery of money. On issuing demand notice under Rule 72 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, 1963 on 29.05.1995 for recovery, the appellant remained in default of payment of demand created under the arbitration award which led to issuance of auction notice on 12.06.1995 for attachment and sale of land of the appellant pledged to the Bank loan to satisfy the award. The auction was conducted on 29.6.1995. The sale certificate was issued on 29.06.1995. The appellant challenged the sale certificate under Section 69 read with Section 3(4) of the Act. The Joint Secretary, Cooperation (Appeals), Punjab dismissed the revision vide order dated 08.10.1996. On dismissal of the revision, sale certificate was issued by the Recovery Officer on 23.01.1998. The appellant approached this Court in its writ jurisdiction in 2009 after a little over 13 years. The appellant died during the pendency of the writ petition and his legal representatives were brought on record on 10.05.2010 by this Court as the cause of action survived.

(2.) The prayer in the writ petition duly supported by factual and legal submissions made in the body of the petition was that the 6th respondent; The Ropar Central Cooperative Bank, Ropar being the ostensible auction purchaser did not participate in the auction nor gave any bid. At the fall of the hammer, the bid was given by the officers at the auction proceedings in favour of the Bank or what appears to have been done by proxy. At any rate, the fact of the matter is that only 25% of the bid amount was deposited on behalf of the 6th respondent but the remaining 75% amount has not been deposited till date with the result that the possession of the land continued to be with the appellant and after his death with the legal heirs and representatives.

(3.) In the revision petition and in the writ petition, the case set up was that no legal auction had taken place and thereafter the late appellant's legal representatives and successors-in-interest were prepared to deposit the amount under the award to save their agricultural land. In none of the written statements filed by the respondents, has this fact been disputed that 75% of the bid amount was not deposited by the Ropar Central Cooperative Bank, Ropar-respondent. Therefore, no title could pass to the Bank. This basic issued raised by the appellant has not been noticed or dealt with by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 31.08.2010 since the writ petition stands dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone. The review application No. 323 of 2010 against the order dated 31.08.2010 has also been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 16.05.2011 holding that no ground for review is made out.