Baldev Singh vs State of Punjab

S.P. Goyal, J.

In this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the order dated January 3, 1975 (annexure P5) whereby the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh, in exercise of the revisional powers under section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), reversed the appellate order of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Amritsar, dated November 12, 1973.

The dispute between the petitioner and the Uggar Aulakh Cooperative Agricultural Service Society, respondent No. 7, having been referred for arbitration, the Arbitrator gave an ex parte Award dated June 23, 1972 against the petitioner in the amount of Rs. 13,466.31. The petitioner went in appeal against the said Award before the Assistant Registrar who accepted the same vide order dated November 12, 1973 and set aside the Award. The appellate order of the Assistant Registrar was challenged by the Society in a revision petition filed under section 69 of the Act which was accepted vide the impugned order.

The validity of the impugned order has been challenged primarily on the ground that revision petition under section 69 of the Act could be heard and disposed of only by a Deputy Secretary exercising the powers of the State Government and the Additional Registrar has no jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the same. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Brij Lal v. The State of Punjab and others, 1973 P.L.J. 462, wherein Dhillon, J. after noticing various provisions of the Act held :

"An order passed by any person as a delegate of the Registrar under section 68(2)(e), is not revisable by the Registrar himself, but it can only be revised by the State Government.

Whenever a power, which has been specifically entrusted to the Registrar under the provisions of clause (e), subsection (2) of Section 68 of the Act is exercised by a delegatee, the said order of the delegatee will be deemed to be the order of the Registrar in the eyes of law and in those cases the revision would lie to the State Government.

Where a power under the statute has been specifically given to the Registrar alone and the same is exercised by a delegatee, the said order will be revisable by the State Government and not by the Registrar even though the delegatee, who exercised the power, was the Assistant Registrar or the Deputy Registrar or the Joint Registrar or the Additional Registrar."

Mr. D.V. Sehgal, the learned counsel for respondent No. 7, on the other hand, urged that the effect of the said judgment has been nullified by the Legislature by adding subclause (5) to section 3 of the Act which reads as under :

"3. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, where any power of the Registrar is exercised by any authority by virtue of the order issued by the Government under subsection (3), the order passed or decision made by such authority shall, for the purpose of appeal, be deemed to be the order or decision of that authority and not of the Registrar."

The learned counsel, therefore, argues that the appeal under section 68 of the Act is deemed to be disposed of by the Assistant Registrar as such and not in exercise of the powers of the Registrar. The argument sounds quite attractive but when the provisions of subclause (5) are closely examined, the fallacy becomes quite apparent. According to the newly added subclause (5) when any power of the Registrar is exercised by any authority by virtue of the order issued by the Government under subsection (3), the order passed by such authority is deemed to be the order of that authority and not of the Registrar. In notification No. S.O. 71/P.A. 23/61/S. 3/69, dated November 19, 1969, the powers of the Registrar under a number of sections were conferred on the Assistant Registrars but section 68 was not included in this notification. The appeal is, therefore, still disposed of by the Assistant Registrar not because the powers of the Registrar under section 68 of the Act have been conferred upon him but because of delegation of its powers by the Registrar to him under clause (e) of subsection (2) to section 68 of the Act. The decision in Brij Lal''s case (supra) thus still holds the field so far as the exercise of the appellate powers of the Registrar by the Assistant Registrar is concerned and the enactment of subclause (5) to section 3 has no effect on the rule laid down by the Division Bench that a revision against the appellate order of the Assistant Registrar under section 69 of the Act can be only heard and disposed of by the Deputy Secretary to Government exercising the powers of the State Government. It was probably because of this reason that a Division Bench of this Court again in Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 1976 R.L.R. 104, reiterated that against the appellate order of the Assistant Registrar, revision petition under section 69 of the Act can be heard only by the Deputy Secretary to Government and that the Registrar Cooperative Societies has no jurisdiction to dispose of the same.

For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated January 3, 1975 (annexure P5) passed by the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, is hereby quashed. No order as to costs.