PREET KAWAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this judgment, I propose to dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 6856 of 1997, 8510 of 1996 and 1992 of 1997. The facts have been taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 6856 of 1997. Vide advertisement, Annexure P-1, issued in the "daily Ajit", dated the 6th August, 1991, the Punjab State Co-operative Bank-respondent No. 2, invited application for the award of scholarship of Rs. 24,000.00 per annum to student studying in technical courses. Petitioner No. 1, who had already got admission in the Bachelor of Engineering Course and petitioner No. 2 who had taken admission in the course of Agricultural Engineering, applied for the scholarships. The Bank finding their applications to be in order, awarded the scholarship of Rs. 24,000.00 for the year 1991-92 and the amount of Rs. 24,000.00 was also released to them. The case of the petitioners is that as they were studying in a four year course, they were entitled to the scholarship of Rs. 24,000.00 per year for the duration of their course, but the respondents failed to pay the scholarship for the year 1992-93 onwards despite the fact that the petitioners continued to fulfil the qualifications for the receipt of the scholarship. The petitioners, accordingly, filed a revision petition under Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 ' (hereinafter called "the Act"), before the State Government seeking a direction to the respondent-Bank for the release of the scholarships. The State Government, vide its order dated 91th August, 1995 Annexure P-10 to the petition, dismissed the revision petition with an additional direction that an enquiry into the affairs of the Bank be held in the light of the suo-motu powers conferred under Section 51 of the Act. The respondent Bank thereafter gave legal notices to the parents of the petitioners (Annexures P-12 and P-13 to the petition) calling upon them to refund the amount of the scholarships. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have come to this Court impugning the order Annexure P-10 and the notices Annexures P-12 and P-13.

(2.) NOTICE of motion was issued in this case and a reply has also been put in on behalf of the respondent-Bank. It has, inter-alia, been pleaded that the release of the scholarships had been withheld by the Bank as the scholarships had been granted without authorisation and in contravention of the rules which governed the business activities of the Bank. It has also been pointed out that the scheme for the award of scholarships had been withdrawn in July, 1993 and as no indefeasible right had accrued to the petitioners for the receipts of the scholarship, they could not challenge the withdrawal of the same. It has also been pleaded that the State-Government, while making the order Annexure P-10, had been deeply influenced by the fact that the power to award the scholarships conferred by the Board of Directors on the Bank had been grossly misused and as the scholarships had been granted to the petitioners who happened to be sons of senior officers of the Bank, the very exercise of the power, was mala fide.

(3.) AS against this, Mr. Parminder Singh, the learned counsel representing the Bank has pointed out that in addition to the stand taken in the written statement it was apparent from the order Annexure P-10 that the action of the Bank in awarding the scholarships was wholly unauthorised. In this connection, he has referred to the findings recorded by the State Government in the order Annexure P-10 and has culled out the reasons that had led to the making of the order.