BRIJ LAL Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB, ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Civil Writ petitions Nos. 379, 431, 489, 797 and 957 of 1973. The Petitioners in all these writ petitions approached the State Government in revisional jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It may be pointed out that the powers of the State Government under Section 69 of the Act are not exercised by the Minister of the Cooperative Department but the same are being exercised by a delegatee either the Under -Secretary or the Deputy Secretary to Government, as the case may be. It is the admitted case of the parties that in none of these cases, appeal against the award of the Arbitrator lay to the State Government, Punjab, under Section 68 of the Act, but in fact the appeals lay to the Registrar under Section 68(2)(c) of the Act, who has further delegated its powers to his subordinate officers. The delegatee of the State Government dismissed the revision petitions following the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in Nachhittar Singh v. The State of Punjab and Ors., 1973 P.L.J. 199, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court held that where an appeal lies either to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, or to the State Government under Section 68 of the Act, no revisional jurisdiction can be exercised under the provisions of Section 69 of the Act.

(2.) THEREFORE , the only question which has to be considered in these cases is as to what is the correct interpretation of Section 69 of the Act. It may be pointed out that Chapter XI of the Act deals with appeals and revisions and consists of only three Sections Nos. 68, 69 and 70. Section 68, Sub -section (1) provides that an appeal shall lie under this section against various orders mentioned therein passed under the Act and the appealable orders are specifically mentioned in Clauses (a) to (k) of this sub -section. Sub -section (2) of this section provides as to before which authority the appeal against the orders made appealable under Sub -section (1) of this section, shall lie. Sub -section (3) of this section specifically provides that no appeal shall lie under this section from any decision or order made by any authority in appeal or in other words Sub -section (3) bars a second appeal from the orders made appealable under Sub -section (1) of this section. Then comes Section 69 which deals with the revisional powers, which is in the following terms:

(3.) NO doubt, if the interpretation as given in Nachhattar Singh's case 1973 P.L.J. 199 (supra) is adopted, Section 69 of the Act will not become wholly redundant as there are some other provisions in the Act under which the orders, if passed, are not made appealable under Section 68 of the Act and in these cases the revisional jurisdiction can be exercised but the fact remains that all such provisions under which orders passed have not been made appealable, are not so important and material in the working of the Act. The said provisions are Sections 13, 14, 21, 22, 45, 46 and 47 of the Act. Section 13 deals with the amalgamation, transfer of assets and liabilities and division of cooperative societies. Section 14 deals with the cancellation of registration certificates of cooperative societies in certain cases. Section 21 deals with the transfer of interest on death of members; whereas Section 22 deals with the liability of past member and estate of deceased member. Section 45 deals with the restrictions on loans. Section 46 deals with the restrictions on borrowings and Section 47 deals with the restrictions on other transactions with non -members of the Society. It would thus be seen that all these sections, orders passed under which have not been made appealable, are not so important as the provisions mentioned in Clauses (a) to (k) of Sub -section (1) of Section 68 of the Act which have been made appealable. But if the interpretation to Section 69 of the Act is given as I am inclined to interpret, it will give wider meaning to Section 69 of the Act and not restricted meaning as given in Nachhattar Singh's case 1973 P.L.J. 199 (supra) because in that case revision petition will be competent against all orders passed under the Act, whether the order sought to be revised is the appellate order or otherwise.