GURCHARAN DASS Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and his five brothers, namely Sakhi Chand, Kali Das, Kesho Das, Kanta Chander and Surinder Nath, entered into an agreement with the Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Kapurthala, on February 22, 1947, under which they were to be granted a loan of Rs. 1,20,000 carrying an interest at the rate of 3 per cent for the development of their land by installing tubewells therein within one year. In case they did not instal the tubewells within the stipulated period, the rate of interest would be enhanced to 7 per cent. Though each one of the brothers was to be advanced a sum of Rs. 20,000 yet their liability for the entire amount had to be joint and several. For some reason or the other, the loans were not advanced to the petitioner and his brothers as contemplated by the aforementioned agreement. On June 9, 1947, the petitioner obtained a loan of Rs. 20,000/-. His brothers Sakhi Chand and Kali Das were given a loan of Rs. 20,000/- each, Kanta Chander and Surinder Nath were advanced a loan of Rs. 10,000/- each and the 6th brother Kesho Das did not obtain any loan. The petitioner executed a pronote dated June 9, 1947, Annexure 'B' in favour of respondent No. 3 which shows that the interest payable on the sum of Rs. 20,000 advanced to him would be charged at the rate of 3 per cent per annum. There is no other condition mentioned in this pronote regarding the enhancement of interest. Subsequently, respondent No. 3 addressed a communication to the Chief Minister, Kapurthala State, in which it was mentioned that a loan of Rs. 20,000 carrying an interest at the rate of 3 per cent per annum had been advanced to the petitioner which necessitated the creation of a charge by mortgage on the landed property of the petitioner. It was requested that the Tehsildar, Sultanpur, may be instructed to make the necessary entries in the revenue records regarding "the said mortgage with the above conditions in favour of the Kapurthala State Central Co-operative Bank, Kapurthala, and the Bank be kindly informed of the same". It would, thus, be clear that not only the rate of interest at 3 per cent was mentioned in the pronote but respondent No. 3 also prayed for the mortgage of the property on this very condition. On March 17, 1950, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pepsu, Patiala, passed the following order which is Annexure 'G' to the petition :-

(2.) A reading of this order would show that this action was not taken under the Patiala Recovery of State Dues Act. Under the said Act the Head of the Department was empowered, after serving a notice in that behalf on the defaulter, to determine the State dues which on certificate being issued to him were recoverable by the Collector of the District as arrears of land revenue. Feeling aggrieved against this mode of recovery, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court of Papsu on November 3, 1953. This petition came up before K.R. Passey, the then learned Chief Justice, and G.L. Chopra J., who dismissed the same and the case is Sakhi Chand and others v. Central Co-operative Bank, Kapurthala, and others,1955 AIR(Pepsu) 129 The Bench observed as follows :-

(3.) Latter on, a dispute arose between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 about the quantum of the debt and the mode of its recovery. The petitioner applied to the Registrar on May 15, 1969, for deciding this dispute under Sections 55 and 56 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act by initiating arbitration proceedings. The Registrar referred this dispute for adjudication to the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jullundur as an Arbitrator. When the matter came up before the Arbitrator, it was pleaded before him on the basis of the above quoted passage from the judgment of the Division Bench that the amount already stood determined and it was not open to the petitioner to have the matter re-decided. The petitioner went in appeal before the Registrar against the order of the Deputy Registrar. The Registrar came to the conclusion that the objection of the petitioner against his liability to pay interest at the enhanced rate automatically stood rejected when his petition was dismissed by the High Court. In this view of the matter, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner then filed a revision petition before the State Government which was also dismissed on May 16, 1972. While dismissing the revision petition, the Secretary to Government was persuaded by the consideration that in view of the observations made by the Division Bench in the civil writ filed by the petitioner and his brothers it was not open to him to challenge that he was not liable to pay interest at the enhanced rate.