SATYA NARAIN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SATYA Narain has filed this civil writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ quashing the impugned orders Annexure P/1 and Annexure P/2 being illegal, without jurisdiction and against law and facts.

(2.) AS per averments made in the petition Shri Jagdish Raj (deceased) father of the petitioner was a Secretary of the Gokalgarh Co-operative Credit and Service Society Limited, Gokalgarh. He expired on 11-2-1980 and after his death an arbitration case was referred by the Society against the petitioner and his mother and brother with respect to the recovery of some amount which was stated to be cash in hand with the deceased. Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies Haryana, Rewari gave an award for Rs. 32380/- along-with interest and costs on 11-2-1982. The petitioner preferred an appeal against this award which was dismissed vide Annexure P/2. The petitioner contended that he was not a member of the society and no reference could be made against any person who was not a member or past member of the Society with respect to any dispute. Notice from the office of respondent No. 2 i e. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies was issued to him only and no notice was served on his brother and mother before the impugned order Annexure P/l was passed against them. They were never communicated the date, time and place of hearing. Before passing the award no record was perused nor even statement of the petitioner was recorded. Moreover, the award could be passed against the property of the deceased and legal heirs of the deceased were not personally liable for any debt due from the deceased. In fact respondent No. 4 was working as salesman of the Society and in the award Annexure P/l this fact was admitted that the amount in question related to the sale proceeds of fertilizer, Palm oil and cloth. Respondent No. 4 was, therefore, liable for the amount and so far as the petitioner was concerned the award against him was illegal and without jurisdiction.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 3 filed written statement wherein it was contended that the impugned orders were quite legal and valid. The dispute between the society and heirs or legal representatives of the deceased employee could be referred to arbitration. The petitioner being son of Jagdish Raj, an employee of the Society, was liable to be proceeded against under the provisions of Section 55 (t) (c) of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961.