Balbir Singh vs The State of Haryana

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.—This writ petition is filed to quash the order of the Joint Secretary (Co-operation), Haryana, Chandigarh (Exercising the powers of Government under Sections 68-69 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961) dated June 16, 1981, directing the Deputy Registrar, Karnal, to prepare a statement of the unauthorised journeys undertaken by Balbir Singh petitioner during his tenure as Director and also to prepare an estimate of the petrol consumed during such tours while using the car of the sugar mills.

The petitioner was an elected Director of Panipat Co-operative Sugar Mills from December 1973 to 1977. During his period as Director, he worked as shareholder with the Sugar Mills and also claim T.A./D.A. for the tours undertaken by him and therefore one Dharam Singh Rathi who is a member of the Panipat Co-operative Sugar Mills raised a dispute u/s 55 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, alleging that petitioner Balbir Singh has drawn T.A. and D.A. unauthorisedly from 1974 to 1977 and, therefore, the same may be recovered from him. The matter was referred to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies for arbitration. By his order dated September 25,1980, the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies held that T.A. and D.A. for the tours undertaken by the petitioner were duly authorised by the Board of Directors and, therefore, there was no unauthorised drawal of T.A. and D.A. As against the said order, Dharam Singh Rathi filed an appeal before the Joint Secretary (Co-operation) Haryana, Chandigarh who passed the impugned order on June 16, 1981. The petitioner has, thus, filed the above writ petition to quash the said order.

There is no dispute that the petitioner Balbir Singh when he was working as Director, Panipat Co-operative Sugar Mills drew certain amount as T.A./D.A. for the tours undertaken by him. According to him, the tours were authorised as he went to check Sugarcane centres and on other study tours under the orders of the General Manager of Sugar Mills and the same has been authorised by the Board of Directors. The petitioner produced a letter bearing No. 75-76/7863 dated April 2, 1976, issued by the Managing Director, Co-operative Sugar Mills, to show that he was authorised to check the Sugarcane centres. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies also observed that whenever Balbir Singh went on tours he did so under the specific orders of the General Manager of the Sugar Mills. He also referred to letter of the General Manager bearing No. 75-76/7863 dated April 2, 1976, which shows that the tours were authorised by the Board of Directors. According to the Joint Secretary (Co-operation) Haryana, Chandigarh. No resolution of the Board has been produced before him to show that the Chairman or the General Manager was ever authorised to allow a Director to undertake tour for inspection of the Sugarcane centres or allied activities. This approach of the Joint Secretary (Co-operation) Haryana does not appear to be correct when the Chairman and the Managing Director Specifically stated that the tours were authorised and that there was a resolution passed by the Board of Director. It has to be taken that the official acts have been performed in accordance with law. A presumption can be raised u/s 114 of the Evidence Act that official acts have been regularly and duly performed. When the Managing Director and the Chairman have stated that the tours were authorised by the Board of Directors, it is for respondent No. 3 Dharam Singh Rathi who is a member of the co-operative Sugarcane Mills, to lead evidence that the letters issued by the Chairman and the Managing Director did not contain correct state of facts. It is not for the petitioner who acted on the basis of the authorisation issued by the Managing Director, to verify whether there was any resolution of the Board of Directors or not. There cannot be any dispute that day to day administrative functions have to be carried on by the Managing Director or the Chairman of the Co-operative Sugarcane Mills. Day to day administration has to be carried on by them only. Authorising a Director or any other employee of the Company to do a particular act is only a day to day function of the co-operative Sugarcane Mills. In such a case it is not necessary that the Board of Directors should pass resolutions for each tour to be undertaken either by its Directors or by its employees. No provision either in the Act or in the byelaws has been brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the respondents which would show that the prior permission by the Board of Directors is required in each and every case whenever a tour has been undertaken either by the Directors or by its employees. Apart from that the letters referred to by the Deputy Registrar. Co-operative Societies who acted as Arbitrator clearly shows that the Chairman and the Managing Director specifically stated that the tours have been undertaken on a resolution passed by the Board of the Directors. The Joint Secretary (Co-operation) Haryana Chandigarh has not given any cogent reasons for setting aside the order of the Deputy Registrar except saying that the petitioner has not produced before him any resolution of the Board of Directors.

In that view of the matter, the order of the Joint Secretary (Co-operation) Haryana Chandigarh June 16, 1981 (Annexure P) is hereby is hereby quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to Costs.