NACHHATTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for quashing the order of Under Secretary of Government, Punjab, dated March 8, 1972 (copy Annexure 'B' to the petition).

(2.) The facts of this writ petition are that the petitioner was a cashier in Cooperative Agricultural Society, Kherpur Jattan, respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society'). Respondent No. 4 took a loan of Rs. 1400/- from the society and executed a bond for the said amount in its favour. Respondent No. 4 failed to pay the said amount and made an excuse that he had not received any amount from the society. Therefore, the matter was referred to Shri Rakha Singh by an order dated April 24, 1970, for arbitration who gave an award against the petitioner in favour of respondent No. 4. He having felt aggrieved from the award of the Arbitrator filed an appeal under Section 68 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, which was heard by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, exercising the powers of the Registrar, Punjab. He allowed the appeal and set aside the award of the Arbitrator dated December 9, 1970, by his order dated January 31, 1972 (copy Annexure 'A'). It was ordered by him that the amount of Rs. 1400/- should be recovered from Kirpal Singh. Respondent No. 4 filed a revision petition under Section 69 of the Act against the said order dated January 31, 1972, to the Punjab Government, which was heard by respondent No. 2 on March 8, 1972. He allowed the revision petition of respondent No. 4 and held that the petitioner was responsible to the extent of Rs. 1,000/- out of the amount of the bond and respondent No. 4 was liable for the amount of Rs. 400/-. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the said order of the State of Punjab dated March 8, 1972, challenging in inter alia on the ground that the State Government had no power to revise the order of the Registrar under Section 69 of the Act.

(3.) Both the parties have contested the Writ Petition but none of them has filed a return to the petition. The first submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that reading of Section 69 of the Act alongwith Section 68 clearly shows that the State Government has got no right to revise the order of the Registrar passed by him in appeal. It has been stated by the petitioner in para 6 of the petition that the appeal from the order of the Arbitrator lay to the Registrar which allegation will be deemed to be correct as no return has been filed by the respondent. It is also clear from the reading of clause (e) of sub-section (2) of Section 68 of the Act that if the appeal from the order of any other person than the persons mentioned in sub-clauses (a) to (d) is to be filed, that will be maintainable before the Registrar. The Arbitrator in the present case does not fall in any of the categories mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 68 of the Act. Section 69 relates to the revisions which is as follows :-