Mukhtar Singh vs Register, Co-op. Societies, Punjab

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—By this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging order dated 12.5.1999 passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies which is as under:

"Arguments heard. This case is remanded back to D.R.C.S. Ferozepur for passing a speaking order. Petition is disposed of accordingly."

The facts which emerge from the order which has been set aside i.e. annexure P/3 which is an order passed by the Deputy Registrar in appeal filed by respondent No. 3 Amarjit Sharma are as under :

Amarjit Sharma was working with the Fatehgarh Panjtoor Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Society"). An arbitration case for the principal amount of Rs. 53430.28 was prepared which was decided against him on 2,8.88 by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Fazilka. Amarjit Sharma filed appeal and vide orders dated 18.10.1988 the case was remanded for fresh decision to the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Zira who gave award against Amarjit Sharma on 2.9.1992. Amarjit Sharma filed revision petition and vide order dated 27.4.1994, the case was remanded for fresh decision by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division. The said order is produced at annexure R3/1.

After the remand, the case was heard on different dates. On 18.7.96, the case was dismissed in default. The restoration application was accepted on 21.8.1997. The appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Registrar and the reasons for dismissal of the appeal are as under :

"After hearing both the parties and looking to the arbitration file, the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Fazilka while giving his award on 2,8,88 against the appellant has referred to the detail of the amount against the appellant in view of the record of the cooperative society, he has given the reason how this amount is due against him. Like this way, the Asstt. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Zira in his decision dated 2.9.1992 has given the detail of the dispute that the record of the society was written by Shri Amarjit Sharma appellant. He has made the entries in the cash book and admitted those entries. When the appellant admitted the entries done by him in the record then there is no necessity of further examination. Beside this the awards already passed against the appellant (by) the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative appellant by (Societies?). Fazilka and Zira are self-speaking, there is no further need to go through those awards. So I dismissed the appeal and upheld the arbitration award dated 2.9.1992 passed by the Assistant Registrar. Cooperative Societies, Zira."

Against the dismissal of appeal Amarjit Sharma filed a revision application before the State Government. As per annexure P/1, a letter written by the Joint Secretary, Cooperative, the following order was passed in the revision application :

"Heard. The counsel for the petitioner stated that, this case may kindly be dismissed as withdrawn. Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn."

Therefore, the revision petition filed by Amarjit Sharma was dismissed as withdrawn. Amarjit Sharma then filed a revision petition in the court of Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab and in that revision, the impugned order dated 12.5,99 reproduced in annexure P/2 was passed.

Argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the second revision was not maintainable when first revision petition was withdrawn. The second revision could not be filed. In the written statement respondent No. 3 Amarjit Sharma has taken upon contention that he being Secretary of the Society was neither a party to the original arbitration reference nor ought to have been held liable for the amount in dispute, because it relates to the petitioner Mukhtiar Singh.

It is, therefore, clear that earlier revision petition was filed by respondent No. 3. It came up for hearing before the Joint Secretary Cooperative, Punjab and was dismissed as withdrawn. Order does not mention that permission was granted to file fresh revision petition. No reason is shown as to why first revision petition was withdrawn by respondent No. 3.

It is contended by the petitioner that the said fact of withdrawal of revision was not brought to the notice of the Registrar, who passed the impugned order. Contrary is not shown. Even the Registrar has not given any reason for remanding the case back. With this long history of the case it is found that respondent No. 3 is playing hide and seek. Once the revision petition was dismissed as withdrawn, we do not find any reason to show that the second one should have been entertained by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. The impugned order, therefore, deserves to be set aside.

In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order annexure P/2 is set aside.

Petition allowed.