ISHAR DAS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the notices, dated April 17, 1973 (copies Annexures 'a' and 'b' to the petition) issued by the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, respondent No. 3.

(2.) THE facts of the writ petition are that the petitioners are the members of the Metlan Co-operative Agricultural Service Society, Metlan, tehsil and district Ambala (now under winding up) (hereinafter referred to as 'the 'society') which is registered under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). Respondent No. 3 who directed the winding up of the Society appointed respondent No. 4 as its Liquidator under Sub-section (1) of Section 58 of the Act. A few days before the notices, dated April 17, 1973, (Copies Annexures 'a and 'b') were issued to the petitioners, respondents 4 and 5 came to their village and asked them to pay the loans which were alleged to be outstanding in their names in the records of the Society. The petitioners informed them that whatever loan they had taken from the Society had been repaid from time to time and no amount was, then due to the Society from them. Respondents 4 and 5 moved an application under Section 67-A of the Act under which the amount could be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The Assistant Registrar sent the impugned notices, dated April 17, 1973, to the petitioners and asked the petitioners to appear before him on April 27, 1973, to represent their case. The case was adjourned on that date to May 3, 1973, and then to May 5, 1973. On May 5, 1973, a preliminary objection was raised by the petitioners before respondent No. 3 that as the Society was under winding up process, no action could be taken against them for recovery of any debt except by following a procedure under Section 59 of the Act read with Rules 58 and 59 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' ). They further stated that when a Society was under winding up, the loan due from any person could be recovered by the Liquidator, by an order passed under Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 59 of the Act. Respondent No. 3 overruled the objections of the petitioners. Respondent No. 3 has no jurisdiction and power to issue any notices to the petitioners in respect of the alleged loan. Section 67-A of the Act is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 150, as uncontrolled and unbridled powers have been given to the Registrar under that section and no provision of appeal or revision against an order passed under that section has been provided in the Act. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid notices marked as Annexures 'a' and 'b' on the ground that they are illegal, void and without jurisdiction. The respondents have contested the petition.

(3.) THE first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the winding up of the Society has been ordered and a Liquidator has been appointed. He further submits that the amount which is recoveraable from the petitioners should be determined by the Liquidator under Section 59 of the Act and the same can be recovered under Section 64 of the Act. According to him, Section 67-A has no applicability to the present case. It is, therefore, argued toy him that the notices issued under Section 67-A are illegal and without jurisdiction. In order to appreciate the argument of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, it is necessary to reproduce Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 58, Sub-section (1) and Clauses (a) and (b) of Subsection (2) of Section 59, Section 64 and Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 47-A of the Act, which are as follows:-