Kashmira Singh vs Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rohtak

K.S. Bhalla, J.

Petitioner, Kashmira Singh worked as Secretary of the Khirindwa Cooperative Credit and Service Society Limited, Khirindwa, (in short the Society hereinafter). During the course of his employment as Secretary of the Society there were misappropriation of funds and the dispute with regard thereto was referred for arbitration under Section 55 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter called `the Act''). Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Kurukshetra as arbitrator gave an ex parte award (Annexure P1) on 9.10.1979 in said arbitration reference holding that Rs. 19,492.46 were recoverable from the petitioner. He found that petitioner recovered different amounts detailed in the award from different persons but the same were not accounted for as receipts in the accounts of the Society which were to be maintained by the petitioner as Secretary to the Society.

During the execution of that award, property of the petitioner was attached vide attachment order (Annexure P2) dated 4.4.1985. Notice for sale of the attached property to be conducted on 27.3.1987 at 11 A.M. was issued and thereafter petitioner preferred appeal before Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Rohtak who vide his order dated 14.5.1987 (Annexure R1) dismissed the same as barred by time. The various orders made against the petitioner as detailed above have been assailed by him through this civil writ petition.

The objection of the petitioner that he had no knowledge about the reference to arbitration and that he was not given reasonable opportunity to defend by the arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings cannot hold good for the simple reason that he put in appearance before the arbitration on 25.7.1978 in response to the notice served upon him. It is mentioned in the award (Annexure P1) that notice dated 15.7.1978 was sent to the petitioner to appear before the arbitrator on 25.7.1978 which wad received by him and that Shri Kashmira Singh, appeared before the Arbitrator (Shri Madan Singh Assistant Registrar) in response thereto. This fact also finds mention in the appellate order Annexure R1. It further makes reference to the signatures of the petitioner on the file of the proceedings as well as his admission in this respect as under :

"The signature available on the file on 25.7.1978 were shown to Kashmira Singh and also asked whether he appeared before the Arbitrator or not. Appellant admitted that he appeared before the Arbitrator on 25.7.1978."

The only other law point urged by the petitioner is to the effect that his case being covered under Section 54 of the Act, resort could not be had under Section 55 thereof which is general one. Section 55 of the Act admittedly has a wider scope. Clause (c) of subsection (1) thereof says, "if any dispute touching the management or the business of a Cooperative Society arises between the Society and any Officer or any past Officer such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision." The case of the petitioner, therefore, clearly fell within the scope of Section 55 of the Act. This conclusion of ours is also reinforced by Pentakota Sriramulu v. Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd. Anakapalli and another, AIR 1965 Supreme Court 621, a ruling cited on behalf of the petitioner, wherein it has been held,

"Where a claim is one against a person in management of the Society and for the fraudulent retention of money or other property of the Society the case does not completely fall under Section 49 and consequently the order of Registrar proceeding under Section 51 is not open to objection."

Section 49 and 51 of Madras Cooperative Societies Act (6 of 1932) provides provisions analogous to provisions of Sections 54 and 55 respectively of the Act.

Again, to exclude Section 55 of the Act, it must be shown that the case was completely covered by Section 54. This was also the ratio of Jai pal v. The State of Haryana and others, 1984 PLJ 8 : 1984 R.R.R. 203, a single Bench ruling of this Court. Section 54 of the Act deals with special types of disputes which arise in exceptional circumstances. No doubt it is mentioned in the writ petition that certain discrepancies in the accounts of the Society were found in the audit of the Society conducted in the year 1976, but no audit report has been placed or got placed on the record. In the absence of the audit report, it cannot be said to have covered all the items of misappropriation, so as to conclude that the case of the petitioner was completely covered by Section 54 of the Act. The fact that the audit report has not been relied upon by the petitioner, to our mind, provides a nail in the coffin so far as his case with regard to action under Section 54 to the exclusion of Section 55 of the Act is concerned.

The result is that we see no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed with costs.