Government Employees Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. vs The Deputy Registrar Co-op. Societies and Others

N.C. Jain and V.K. Bali, JJ.—After allowing the writ petition at the stage of motion hearing, the mistake detected by us was that the impugned judgment was passed by Deputy Registrar and not by the Assistant Registrar and therefore we fixed the case for re-hearing. The counsel for the parties have again been heard. After hearing them, we are of the view that the conclusion arrived at by us on July 29, 1996 was correct. However, in view of the facts having been high-lighted by the counsel for the parties with clarity today, it is necessary to dictate fresh judgment.

The petitioner herein has challenged the legality and validity of the order passed by the Deputy Registrar (Annexure P4) allowing the appeal of respondent No. 3. We hasten to add that in the impugned order, Annexure P4, the learned Officer wrongly described himself as Deputy Registrar, may be by mistake. Infact he retired as Assistant Registrar. It has been so averred in paragraph 7 of the writ petition that Shri Suraj Bhan, Assistant Registrar, was never delegated the powers of Deputy Registrar by the State Government and that the powers delegated to the Deputy Registrar under the statute could not be exercised by the Assistant Registrar in accordance with the copy of the notification issued by the Government, Annexure P3. The averment made in para 7 was not seriously controverted. Since the learned Officer never exercised the powers of the Deputy Registrar, no appeal was competent before him against any decision or order in accordance with Section 114(2) of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984. In the present case, the order, Annexure P2, impugned before the learned appellate authority was passed by the Assistant Registrar and therefore no appeal would lay from the order of the Assistant Registrar to another Assistant Registrar.

Faced with this situation, the counsel for the respondents has argued that the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner could have filed a revision petition under the provisions of Section 115 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act.

After going through the provisions of Section 115, we are of the view that no revision was competent in the present case. The revision petition was maintainable only if a reference u/s 102 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act had been made. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that revision petition was maintainable, we are not inclined to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy. The position of law, as has been demonstrated by us as above, is clear. The impugned order, Annexure P4, is clearly without jurisdiction.

For the reasons recorded above, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned order, Annexure P4, is set aside. The appeal would now be decided by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana on 19.8.1996. A copy of the judgment be given dasti on payment.