Thoru Ram vs Under Secretary Development (I) Co-operative Department, Punjab and others

J.M. Tandon, J.

Thoru Ram petitioner was the President, Khepar Cooperative Agricultural Service Society, Khepar, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur. In a dispute regarding the business of the Society and the settlement of accounts the matter was referred to Jagdish Mitter, Arbitrator (respondent No. 3). After hearing the petitioner and Kharaiti Ram, Secretary of the Society, the Arbitrator vide award dated May 8, 1971, (Annexure `E'') found that a sum of Rs. 4782.89 which was cash in hand of the Society was utilised by the petitioner for his personal use. The petitioner was consequently held liable to pay this amount together with interest. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the award Annexure `E'' filed an appeal which was disposed of by the Assistant Registrar vide order dated October 28, 1971, (Annexure `F''). Thoru Ram petitioner was held responsible for Rs. 4782.89 along with Kharaiti Ram, Secretary of the Society. The Society filed revision under Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act (hereinafter the Act) against the appellate order Annexure `F'' which was decided by Under Secretary Development and Co operation vide order dated February 28, 1972, (Annexure `G''). The revision was accepted, the appellate order Annexure `F'' set aside and the award of the Arbitrator Annexure `E'' restored. The petitioner has assailed the award of the Arbitrator Annexure `E'' orders of the appellate authority Annexure `F'' and of the revisional authority annexure `G'' in the present wit petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the finding of fact recorded by the Arbitrator against the petitioner was rightly upset by the appellate authority. The revisional authority had no jurisdiction to reverse the finding of fact recorded by the appellate authority. The order of the revisional authority (Annexure `G'') is liable to be quashed. The contention is without merit. Section 69 of the Act deals with the revision which reads as under :

"69. Revision. The State Government and the Registrar may, suo motu or on the application of a party to a reference, call for an examine the record of any proceedings in which no appeal under section 68 lies to the Government or the Registrar, as the case may be for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed and if in any case it shall appear to the Government or the Registrar that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled or revised, the Government or the Registrar, as the case may be may, after giving persons affected thereby an opportunity of being heard pass such order thereon as it or he may deem fit."

It is clear that the revisional authority can look into the legality as also the propriety of the order under revision. It is, therefore, incorrect that the revisional authority cannot upset the finding of fact recorded by the appellate authority.

It has also been argued that the Arbitrator as also the appellate authority have recorded wrong findings of fact against the petitioner and as such are liable to be quashed. This contention is also without merit. The finding of fact recorded by the Arbitrator which has been restored by the revisional authority cannot be assailed in writ proceeding.

In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.