VED PARKASH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as a Secretary of the Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Ltd., Narot Mehra, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur (hereinafter referred to as the Society). Though it was not contemplated by the bye-laws of the Society that it should not carry on the cloth business yet some of the members of the Managing Committee passed resolution to this effect and withdrew the money of the Society for the investment of the same in this business. The amount so withdrawn was a loss to the Society. During the course of inspection of the Society, the Inspector concerned made a report that some persons were liable to make payment of this amount. Consequently, respondent No. 2, exercising the powers of the Registrar, served a notice upon the petitioner and some other members of the Managing Committee and fixed their liability. An appeal against this order was filed before the Deputy Secretary to Government, exercising the powers of the Government under the Act. A copy of the Grounds of Appeal, Annexure R-5, filed by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 shows that it was drafted on 25th of April, 1972. In the last but one para of this document, it is mentioned that the appellants before the Government, spent time from 28th of March, 1972 to 18th of April, 1972, for getting a copy of the order under appeal. The Appellate Authority without making reference to this allegation, dismissed this appeal as time-barred by 21 days.

(2.) It appears that Rule 75 of the Co-operative Societies Rules, did not come to the notice of the Appellate Authority. This rule lays down that no appeal shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by a copy of the order appealed against. If the appellant is called upon to file a copy of the judgment against which an appeal is to be filed then certainly he is entitled to deduct the time spent for computing the period of limitation for filing the appeal. In the instant case, the requisite copy was supplied after 23 days. If the credit for this period is given to the petitioner, then the appeal filed by him is within time. In this view of the matter, respondent No. 1 was not justified in dismissing the appeal as time-barred.

(3.) I, therefore, allow this petition, set aside the order Annexure 'C' passed by respondent No. 1 and remand the case to him for a fresh decision in accordance with law. I may clarify that the Appellate Authority will be duty bound to hear all concerned in this dispute. Petition allowed.