LAWS(P&H)-2014-9-279

RATTAN SINGH Vs. JOINT SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Decided On September 19, 2014
RATTAN SINGH Appellant
V/S
JOINT SECRETARY AND OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 8.2.1991 (Annexure P/10) passed by the Assistant Registrar as an Arbitrator whereby a sum of Rs. 1,36,802/- was found to be payable by the petitioner and he was also liable to be pay 6% interest on the principal amount i.e. Rs. 93,430/- from the said date till the date of payment. The revisional order dated 2.3.2000 (Annexure P/13) is also subject matter of challenge since the petitioner's appeal had been allowed on 29.1.1992 (Annexure P/12).

(2.) Vide resolution dated 19.9.1974 (Annexure P/1), the members of the respondent no.4-society decided to file writ petition in this Court aggrieved against the notices for recovery issued against the members by respondent no.5-Inspector Hari Ram now deceased. Resultantly Civil Writ Petition No.5127 of 1974 was filed by the society through Amir Singh challenging the notices under Section 67-A(2) & 3 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). In the written statement filed by respondent no.3, the plea taken was that the right course would be to appear before the answering respondent and to produce the receipts given by the Treasurer and since disputed questions were arising. It was also pleaded the record of the society was in the custody of Rattan Singh, Secretary the present petitioner as per the letter of the Inspector of the Society. Keeping in view the defence, the writ petition was got dismissed as withdrawn on 12.11.1974 on account of undertaking given in para No. 28 of the Registrar's written statement since it had been averred that the receipts could be produced and at the best Managing Committee of the society may collect the receipts and produce the same before the respondents and the amount would not be recovered in that eventuality from the members concerned. Thereafter, on 25.11.1974 (Annexure P/4) notices were issued by the Assistant Registrar for production of the receipts and for the record of the society for making verification. Another notice was issued on 15.4.1975 (Annexure P/5) that the members should come present on 30.4.1975 and produce the receipts. The then President Amir Singh of the society lodged FIR No.91 dated 16.5.1975 against the present petitioner Rattan Singh, Amir Singh, Hukam Singh, Hari Singh and Surta under Sections 408, 467, 468, 471 and 201 IPC at Police Station, Jhajjar on the ground that they had misappropriated the amount received from the members of the society and had not deposited the same with the Co-operative Bank. Thereafter, a resolution was passed on 2.12.1975 (Annexure P/7) by the Administrator of the society that since the amount had been retained by said five persons, the case be forwarded for decision under Section 55(1) of the Act and a decree be passed in favour of the society for an amount of Rs. 93,430/- as principal and interest etc. On the basis of the said resolution the arbitration proceedings were initiated against five persons including the petitioner and respondent no.5-now deceased. In the meantime, on 12.8.1985 (Annexure P/6) the criminal proceedings ended in favour of the accused including the petitioner on the ground that matter was totally civil in nature and accused could not be saddled with criminal liability as such. The Assistant Registrar directed recovery as noticed above solely on the ground that receipts were not being produced and one of the respondent therein namely, Surta had stated that he had not given any amount to Hari Singh and recovery of the amount was made by the present petitioner the then Secretary from the members. The relevant observations reads as under:-

(3.) The appeal filed by Rattan Singh was allowed by the Deputy Registrar by noticing that no member of society had come forward to show any receipt to the Arbitrator and earlier conduct was noted whereby the proceedings under Section 67-A of the Act had been initiated against the society and how the members had resorted to litigation before this Court. The relevant findings read as under:-