PARMILA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was enrolled as a member of respondent No. 3 -Society bearing No. 1125 -R -3590. She was owner of truck No. HP 23 -9943. The truck was enrolled with respondent No. 3 -Society for carrying the cement. Petitioner sold her truck to respondent No. 4 on 07.07.2003. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 -Society permitted the respondent No. 4 to ply the truck on the basis of priority number (Gatta) allocated to the petitioner. Petitioner approached the Assistant Registrar Co - Operative Society, Bilaspur under Sections 72 and 73 of the H.P. Co -operative Societies Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for convenience sake) for retention of Gatta in her favour. The Assistant Registrar, Co -operative Societies, Bilaspur dismissed the case of petitioner vide order dated 22.09.2007. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Joint Registrar (Marketing), Co -operative Societies, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla. He also dismissed the same on 30.06.2008.

(2.) MR . Deepak Kaushal, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that respondent No. 3 could not permit respondent No. 4 and thereafter respondent No. 5 to ply the truck on the priority number, i.e., Gatta allotted to his client against truck No. HP 23 -9943. He then argued that the petitioner was required to be permitted to retain the priority number.

(3.) MR . Dinesh Thakur, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 has argued that once the truck has been sold, there is no illegality in the action of respondent -Society to permit initially respondent No. 4 and thereafter respondent No. 5 to ply the truck on the basis of the priority number initially allotted to the petitioner.