LAWS(P&H)-1996-7-85

RAJINDER PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On July 16, 1996
RAJINDER PAL SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the orders dated 12. 1. 1995 (Annexure P. 5) and 10. 5. 1993 (Annexure P. 4) passed respectively by the Joint Secretary (Appeals) Cooperation Department, Punjab, and Joist Registrar (Farming) Cooperative Societies Punjab. He has also challenged the award dated 3. 8. 1990 passed by Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jagraon and has prayed for quashing of the impugned orders as well as the award.

(2.) IN the writ petition, it has been alleged that the petitioner was the Secretary of the Jodhan Co operative Agricultural Service Society Limited between the years 1979 and 1985 and is presently working as Salesmen in that Society. It is stated that while working as Secretary-cum-Salesman, the petitioner was incharge of the stock of fertilizers and wheat seeds. He was forced to submit his resignation and was reinstated in December, 1984 after the expiry of the tenure of the then Managing Committee. Thereafter, he remained custodian of the stocks till February, 1985. Shri Gurmukh Singh held the charge of stocks of fertilizers, after the petitioner. It is stated that due to storage of stocks of fertilizers and wheat seeds for a long time in the godown, the same got deteriorated. On 21. 12. 1989, the Society raised a dispute and sought the recovery of Rs. 13,452. 79 on account of deterioration of the fertilizer and the wheat seed. This dispute was referred to the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jagraon for arbitration Under Section 56 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (for short, the Act ). Respondent No. 4 gave award on 3. 8. 1990 holding the petitioner liable for the disputed amount and directed him to pay that amount with interest at the rate of 17 per cent The petitioner filed appeal before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, who accepted the same and set aside the award of the arbitrator vide Annexure P. 2. Against the order of the Deputy Registrar, the respondent No. 5 filed revision petition before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. That was transferred to the Additional Registrar (General) Cooperative Societies Punjab. The revisional authority remanded the case back to the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana, who once again accepted the appeal on 31. 7. 1992 and set aside the award of the arbitrator. The Society again filed revision petition. This time, it was submitted before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Patiala who transferred it to the Joint Registrar (Farming), Co operative Societies, Punjab. The revisional authority accepted the petition filed by the Society on 10. 5. 1993 and set aside the order of the Deputy Registrar. The petitioner went in revision before the Joint Secretary (Appeals), Cooperative Department, Punjab, who dismissed the same on the ground that second revision was not competent. The petitioner has, challenged the impugned orders and the award on the ground that the revision petition filed against the appellate order of the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana, should have been heard by the Registrar and his delegates, namely, Joint Registrar (Farming) Co operative Societies, Punjab, had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the revision petition preferred by respondent No. 5. The petitioner has also challenged the order passed by the Joint Secretary on the ground of error of law apparent on the face of it. He has challenged the reference of the dispute on the ground of bar of limitation. According to the petitioner, no dispute could have been raised by the Society after more than four years of his handing over the charge to Shri Gurmukh Singh. The petitioner has pleaded that the award passed by the arbitrator is illegal because the liability of Shri Gurmukh Singh has altogether been ignored.

(3.) RESPONDENTS No. 1, 2 and 4 have also filed separate reply but it is not necessary to make detailed reference to the averments made in that reply because more or less it is on the same line on which reply has been filed by respondent No. 5.