SHIVDEV SINGH Vs. REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES JULLUNDUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in this case have moved this Court under Article 226 of the constitution and pray for a writ of mandamus against the Registrar, Co-operative societies, directing him to comply with the provisions of law in the matter of their dispute with the Chunian Pursharthi Co-operative Multi-purposes Society Limited respondent No. 2.

(2.) THE facts briefly are that the petitioners who are uncle and nephew became members of the respondent Society which was registered on the 20th January 1949. A few days after its registration the Society took on lease from the petitioners a large area of land in district Karnal for cultivation and reclamation. The period of the lease was 10 years. The Society entered into possession of the land and began to cultivate it. Under the terms of the lease a sum of Rs. 13,68411-3 was claimed by the petitioners as their due for the harvest year 1949-50. A similar sum became payable for the harvest year 1950-51 and a sum of Rs. 12,000/- for the third year 1951-52. It is urged by the petitioners that nothing was paid to them although at a meeting of the Society held on the llth May 1952 it was resolved that payment for the third year should be made. It was also mentioned at that time that the business had not shown any profits for the preceding two years and therefore nothing was due to the petitioners for that period. On the 28th May 1952 the petitioners sent a notice to the Society, calling upon them to act under the provisions of rule 18 framed under section 43 of the Co-operative Societies Act of 1912. The petitioners at the same time nominated their own arbitrator. The Society also nominated an arbitrator but the two arbitrators could not agree. The matter was reported to the registrar and on the 18th May 1953 the Registrar informed the petitioners that he had appointed one Harnam Singh as arbitrator in respect of the petitioners' claim for the first year and Anant Bam in respect of their claim for the third year. There was no reference with respect to the claim for the harvest year 1950-51. On the 20th March 1954 the arbitration was cancel kid by a resolution of the Society and the Registrar had in the meantime recalled the appointment of Harnam Singh. Anant Ram had already given his award on the 2nd February 1953 holding that the petitioners were entitled to a sum of Rs. 13,200/- in respect of the third year of the lease. In November 1953 the Society had passed another resolution appointing the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies and Harnam Singh as arbitrators, to take up the disputes of the first two years of the lease. The arbitration was finally abandoned as the result of the intervention by the minister in charge of the Department. His letter, Annexure G-l dated the 14th July 1935; intimated to the petitioners that Government had taken the advice of the legal Remembrancer and had come to the conclusion that the dispute between the parties, i. e. , the petitioners and the Go-operative Society arose out of the contract of lease and was not the sort of dispute which could be dealt with under rule 18. The final communication is Annexure I which was made by the Registrar of Cooporative societies to the petitioners. This letter is in the following terms:-

(3.) IF is said on behalf of the petitioners that the Registrar has failed to deal with the matter as required by law. It is pointed out that Rule 18 has now been superseded by section 50 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act 14 of 1955. When this matter was being considered in the original instance, it was Rule 18 of the rules framed under the old Act which had to be applied. There was no discontinuation of the proceedings after the passing of the Punjab Act and all proceedings under the old Act were to continue under the new Act. The substance of Section 50 is very much in the same terms as Rule 18 although sub-section (3) contains a new provision. Under Sub-section (3) when "any question arises whether" for the purposes of this section a matter referred for decision is a dispute or not, the question shall be decided by the Registrar whose decision shall be "final. "