The Panipat Co. Operative Sugar Mills Ltd. Panipat vs The State Of Haryana and Another

I.S. Tiwana, J.—The Petitioner impugns the order of the Deputy Secretary to Government, Haryana, Cooperative Department, dated 29th November, 1978 (Annexure P-3), pasted u/s 69 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (for short, the Act), as totally without jurisdiction.

Briefly the facts are that Respondent Gaje Singh who is a cane grower and falls within the assigned area of the Petitioner Co operative Sugar Mill raised a dispute against the Petitioner on the ground that during the crushing season 1964 65, he was bonded to supply 900 quintals of sugarcane to the Mill but the mill failed to accept the said supply and as a result thereof, he had to suffer a loss of Rs 4500/- as his cane dried up in the fields for want of crushing This dispute is purported to have been raised u/s 55 of the Act, as according to the Petitioner, he being a member of the Petitioner Co operative Sugar Mill was entitled to raise this dispute under the Act. The dispute in due course was referred by the Registrar to the Arbitrator who vide his order dated 16th August, 1976 (Annexure P-1) held the Mill liable to the extent of Rs. 394275. Appeal of the Mill against this award failed vide order dated 27th January, 1978 (Annexure P 2) It was against the last mentioned order that the Mills filed the revision petition before the Deputy Secretary resulting in the passing of the impugned order. Annexure P 3 No relief qua orders Annexures P-1 and P-2 has specifically been claimed in this petition

The solitary submission of Mr. Kundu, learned Counsel for the Petitioner Mill, as already indicated, is that the impugned order Annexure P 3 is totally without jurisdiction in as much as the authorities under the Act could not take cognizance of the dispute in question as the same did not arise between the Co operative Society and a member. This stand of the Petitioner is sought to be refuted by Mr. Kaidan learned Counsel for Respondent No 2, on the ground that the dispute in question related to the business of the Society which according to the learned Counsel is the crushing of the sugarcane by the Petitioner Cooperative Sugar Mill.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties at some length, I find that the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Respondents are devoid of any merit. It is no doubt true that a dispute between a Soeiety and its members touching the business of the Co-operative Society is justiciable under the provisions of the Co operative Societies Act but it does not imply that every dispute between a person who happens to be a member of the Co-operative Society and the said Society is cognizable by the authorities under the Act. The dispute essentially has to be a dispute which arises between the Co-operative Society and its member in his capacity as a member and not as an individual The learned Counsel for Respondent No 2 is not in a position to show me any provision of law which obliged him to supply his sugarcane to the Petitioner Mill on account of his being a member of that Co operative Society. When a similar argument was raised before the Deputy Secretary on behalf of the Petitioner, he disposed of the same in the following manner:-

Secondly, the learned Counsel for the Sugar Mill failed to show me any law whereby the proceedings under the Punjab Cooperative Society Act, was barred under the Act In fact the provisions of the Punjab Co operative Society Act as well as other Act both available to members of the Co operative Societies but those who are not members of the Society can only take recourse to the provision of Punjab Sugarcane (Regulation of Purchases and Supply) Act and not the Punjab Co-operative Society Act. There is thus no force in the argument put forth by the learned Counsel for the Sugar Mill.

According to the Deputy Secretary, two different remedies are available to two similarly situated cane growers. It one happens to be a member of the Co operative Society which is running the Mill, then he can seek his remedies under the Act and the other who is not a member of the Co-operative Society, has to seek his remedies under the provisions of the Punjab Sugarcane (Regulation of Purchases and Supply) Act, 1953 This approach and conclusion of the Deputy Secretary is obviously untenable The latter mentioned Act is the only Act which regulates the purchase and supply of sugarcane required for use in sugar factories; whether the factory is run by a Cooperative Society or a private individual dots not make any difference so far as the applicability of this Act is concerned. Similarly the fact as to whether the cane grower or supplier is a member of the Co-operative Society which is running the mill or is rot such a member does not make any difference for the applicability of this statute

The last argument raised by Mr. Kaidan, learned Counsel for the Respondent is that since it is the admitted case of the Petitioner Mill that no agreement as envisaged by Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the latter mentioned Act was ever entered into between the parties the Respondent was free to seek his remedies under the Co-operative Societies Act This submission of the learned Counsel again does not appeal to me. As I have already pointed out above, the supply of the sugarcane by the Respondent to the Mill was not in his capacity as a member of the Mill. If no agreement was entered into at is sought to be contended by the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2, then, to my mud, he cannot seek bis remedies even under the latter mentioned Act, i.e . the Punjab Sugarcane (Regulation of Purchases and Supply) Act, 1953.

For the reasons recorded above the impugned order, Annexure P-3, is thus set aside but with no order as to costs.