LAWS(P&H)-1964-7-21

GURDEV SINGH Vs. THE PUNJAB STATE AND OTHERS

Decided On July 31, 1964
GURDEV SINGH Appellant
V/S
The Punjab State And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GURDEV Singh petitioner claims to be the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat in village Mandi and also a member of the official Panchayat Samiti at Phillaur; he also claims to be the Chairman of the Statutory Marketing Committee of Phillaur. He became a member of the Sntlej Co -operative Multi -purpose Society Ltd. Phillaur which is stated to be a body corporate with limited liability registered under the Punjab Co -operative Societies Act. The face value of the shares of the Society is stated to be Rs. 100/ - each and the petitioner claims to hold shares worth Rs. 2,800/ - He was also appointed Honorary Secretary of the Society on 7th July 1954. This office is stated to be distinct and separate from the office of Cashier which was held by one Shri Jarnail Singh, son of Shri Balkar Singh, On 26th September 1956, the name of the Society was changed into Phillaur Co -operative Marketing Society Ltd., which also continued to be registered under the Co -operative Societies Act with limited liability. The District Co -operative Whole -sale Society, Ltd., with its head office at Jullundur, is stated to handle the sale and distribution of Fertilizers and seeds for the whole of Jullundur district. This whole -sale Society is stated to have green a sub -agency to the Phillaur Marketing Co -operative Society Ltd., on 26th September 1956 of which the petitioner was the manager. During the period of six years i.e. from 1956 to 1962, there were numerous checkings of the accounts of the Society by the Sub -Inspector, Inspector and the Assistant Registrar of the Co -operative Societies in accordance with the rules. It is further pleaded that the Registrar under the rules also conducts an annual audit and checking of the accounts of all the Co operative Societies. On 3rd June 1962, the petitioner relinquished the charge of the office of manager and was elected a Director of the Phillaur Co -operative Marketing Society. In February, 1962 or a little earlier, the Assistant Registrar's office found a sum of Rs. 34,181.15 P. due from the said Society on account of sale of fertilizer etc. The petitioner asserts that he has now come to know that the Assistant Registrar of Co -operative Societies made demands for the payment of this amount from the Society as a body Corporate and the same was not paid by the Society. The petitioner also claims to have now learnt that on 14th August 1962 the Directors of the Society were served with notices to repay the amount to the Society, and the Tehsildar, Phillaur, was directed to recover the said amount. On 11th February - 1963 Shri Ujagar Singh, Assistant Registrar, Co -operative Societies, directed the Revenue Assistant, Jullundur, to take steps to recover these dues from all the Directors vide Annexure 'A' but the full recovery could not be made. The petitioner, according to his averments, was never served or informed about such demand against him jointly with other Directors On 3rd June 1963 Mrs. B.K. Rai, Assistant Registrar, Jullundur, directed the Collector at Jullundur to recover Rs. 32.753.19 Paise from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue; in pursuance of this direction the Tehsildar on 30th June 1963 ordered the recovery of the amount from the petitioner. It is in these circumstances that the present writ petition has been been filed.

(2.) ON the merits, the main point which has been stressed is that the petitioner has as a matter of fact admitted his liability and has actually paid a substantial portion of the amount claimed. That he has paid a substantial portion is not defined by the petitioner, but he has submitted that his admission was under some sort of a threat. In any case, the petitioner has stressed the point that the liability of the petitioner was also limited to five times the value of the share held by him in the society.

(3.) THE question in my opinion, is of first impression and of considerable importance, for it is likely to arise quite frequently in this State. This should, in my opinion, be authoritatively settled by a larger Bench.