SATNAM SINGH Vs. REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab Chandigarh (hereinafter the Registrar) dated January 13, 1993, reversing the order of the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Amritsar dated February 4, 1992 passed in petition under Rule 20 for the Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Service Societies Employees Service Rules, 1986 and remitting the case to him to find out whether resolution dated September 12, 1991, by which the petitioner was appointed as Secretary of the Khaira Cooperative Agriculture. Service Society Limited, Khaira District Amritsar (for short, the Society) was validly passed, in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) GURMUKH Singh filed a petition under Rule 20 of the Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Service Societies Employees Service Rules, 1986 (for short, the Rules) before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh, on September 23, 1991, challenging the appointment of Shri Satnam Singh as Secretary of the Society. The Registrar transferred the petition to Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Amritsar for disposal. The Deputy Registrar found that Shri Satnam Singh had been validly appointed as a Secretary of the Society vide resolution dated September 12, 1991. He rejected the resolution passed by the managing committee of the Society dated October 10, 1991 vide which Shri Gurmukh Singh was promoted as Secretary of the Society. Aggrieved against the decision of the Deputy Registrar, Shri Gurmukh Singh assailed the same through a petition under Section 3 (4) of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) before the Registrar. The Registrar found that the Deputy Registrar had not arrived at the conclusion that the resolution dated September 12, 1991, by which the petitioner was appointed as Secretary of the Society was passed in accordance with the procedure prescribed. He accordingly set aside the order of the Deputy Registrar dated February 4, 1992 and remitted the case to him for a fresh decision in the light of the observations made in the order. Sh. Satnam Singh, aggrieved against the order of the Registrar, has approached this Court through this petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the validity of the order of the Registrar on merits. His only submission is that petition under Section 3 (4) of the Act against the order of the Deputy Registrar passed on a petition filed under Rule 20 of the Rules was not maintainable. He submits that the Deputy Registrar was conferred with the powers of the Registrar under the Rules and the order passed by him could not be revised by the Registrar.