RUP CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has assailed the arbitration proceedings launched against him under Section 55 of the Punjab Co -operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as applicable to the State of Haryana, which resulted in an award against him for Rs. 22,000 plus interest and the costs of the proceedings. The initial award was given by the Assistant Registrar, Co -operative Societies, Jind, exercising the powers of the Registrar and his appeal against the said award to the Government also failed with a modification in the amount of costs awarded against him.

(2.) THE primary contention of some consequence which has been raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that in this case there was no proper reference to the Registrar for assuming jurisdiction under Section 55 of the Act. He explains that the allegations were levelled against the Petitioner by one Ratti Ram, who was a member of the Hoshiarpur Co -operative Agricultural Service Society, to the effect that the Petitioner had misappropriated an amount of Rs. 22,000. Actually the complaint against the Petitioner was that he had withdrawn Rs. 22,000 on May 16, 1970, from the Jind Central Co -operative Bank for distributing short term loans to the members, but no such loans were in fact disbursed and the amount was misappropriated by the Petitioner. It may be mentioned here that the Petitioner has since been held guilty of this misappropriation and was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment plus a fine of Rs. 2,000 by the trial Court. His appeal before the Sessions Judge also failed, but on a revision filed by him, the case was remanded by the High Court on January 6, l978, only with regard to the anording or a nearing to the Petitioner on the question of sentence. sentence. The learned Counsel contends that one of the essential prerequisites of Section 55 of the Act, is that there should be a dispute touching the constitution, amendment or the business of a Co -operative society before the registrar can proceed to assume jurisdiction in the matter. He explains that in this case neither the Co -operative Society nor any other person authorised by it made a move against the Petitioner. The Assistant Registrar exercising the powers of the Registrar was not within his jurisdiction to proceed in the matter, in a nut -shell, his argument is that Ratti Ram, though a member of the Co -operative Society, was not a party to the dispute. In order to support his contention, he places reliance on Rules 51 and 55 of the Punjab Co -operative Societies Rules, 1963. On the other hand, Mr. Naubat Singh, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, on behalf of Respondent No. 1 and Mr. K. S. Kundu, on behalf of Respondents 2 and 4, maintain that any person interested in the affairs of the Society and more particularly a member thereof can always launch these proceedings or make a reference to the Registrar on the basis of which he, that is, the Registrar can proceed in the matter. In support of their contention they relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Lakha Singh v. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh and others : A.I.R. 1973 P&H 13 To resolve the rival contentions, a reference to the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules has become necessary. Section 55 reads as under:

(3.) IN the light of the above facts, the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is undoubtedly well -founded. The Society never made any demand against the Petitioner nor did it make any reference to the Registrar in this regard. The judgment relied upon by the Respondents does not in terms lay down that a person, who is not a party to a dispute, can also make a reference to the Registrar under Section 55 of the Act. On the other hand, what has been held therein is that the Registrar cannot suo motu take action in a dispute of the type mentioned in Section 55. He can do so only on a petition filed by an interested party. The words 'interested party' would essentially mean a party having interest in the dispute. This is further clear from the following lines appearing in the judgment: