CHAMAN LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india the following circumstances:-Petitioner and respondents Nos. 6 to 15 are members of the Ludhiana hosiery Industrial Workers' Co-operative Housing Building Societies limited for Gandhi Nagar Colony. There was a dispute between these members about the embezzlement of certain transport charges. This dispute had been referred for arbitration of respondent No. 5 under sections 55 and 56 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter briefly referred to as 'the Act' ). Respondent No. 5 had given an award against respondents Nos. 6 to 14 on 15-10-1965. Respondents nos. 6 to 12 had filed an appeal under Section 68 of the Act which had been dismissed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operatives Societies (respondent No. 4) by his order dated 2-8-1971 (Annexure 'a' ). Respondents Nos. 13 and 14 had not joined the others in challenging this award in appeal.

(2.) A revision petition was then filed under Section 69 by five out of the seven respondents who had been unsuccessful in the appeal under Section 68 of the Act. This revision petition has been accepted by an Under-Secretary (respondent No. 2)of the Punjab Government (respondent No. 1) by his impugned order dated 14-11972 (Annexure 'b' ).

(3.) THE petitioner's contention is that respondent No. 2 had no jurisdiction to dispose of this revision petition on that date on which be passed the impugned order (Annexure 'b') dated 14-1-1972. This averment is fully borne out by the return filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and copies of two standing orders which are Annexures to this return. In the first standing order passed on 812-1971, respondent No. 2 and only been authorised to hear appeals of Patiala and Jullundur Divisions arising under the Act. This standing order was replaced by another standing order bearing even number and date. The second standing order does not bear any date of issue and it is only from the return that we find that the earlier standing order dated 8-12-1971 had been substituted by the later standing order on 2-2-1972, that is to say more than fortnight after the passing of the impugned order. Respondent No. 2 had, therefore, been empowered to hear revision petitions under Section 69 of the Act by a standing order which was passed on 2-2-1972. The reference to the date of the original order which was substituted by this second standing order may suggest that the intention was to give retrospective effect to the later standing order.