Harpal Singh vs Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh and Others

Ranjit Singh, J.—Petitioner, Harpal Singh as well as Ravinder Singh were elected as Committee Members of the Store in an election to the Managing Committee of the RTP Employees Cooperative Consumer Store Ltd., Noohon Colony, Ropar. The election of the office bearers was held to elect Honorary Manager and Honorary Cashier. The Managing Committee authorised the petitioner to perform duties of the Manager and to operate bank account of the store. The signatures of the petitioner and Randhir Singh, President and Ravinder Singh, Cashier were mandatory. The petitioner was also authorised to control, arrange the LPG cylinders and petrol to be supplied to the members of the store and whereas Ravinder Singh was authorised to look after the daily work of sale and deposit of the cash in the Bank in Store''s account. The Managing Committee was removed on 6.9.1997 and Administrator was appointed to run the day to day affairs of the store. The audit of the store was conducted and shortage to the tune of Rs. 1,09,046-19 was detected. Reference of the dispute was accordingly made by Assistant, Registrar Cooperative Society on 8.12.2003. An award was passed against the petitioner as well as against respondent No. 6. Respondent No. 6 filed an appeal against this order, whereby he was saddled with 50% liability after extending some concession to the petitioner.

This award was set-aside on 8.12.2003 and the case was remanded to Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, for adjudicating the same in accordance with law. The finding is that respondent No. 6 has been held liable without indicating as to how liability could be fastened on him. Aggrieved against the appellate order, the petitioner had filed a revision. His grievance is that name of Ravinder Singh has been deleted from the array of respondents without much justification. Contradictory statement statedly was made on the basis of which earlier the petitioner had been given benefit of some amount. The present writ petition accordingly is filed to impugn that part of the order whereby the name of respondent No. 6 has been deleted from the array of respondents. The grievance of the petitioner is that this could not have been so done in a revision filed by the petitioner.

The case has only been remanded. The proceedings now would take place before the Deputy Registrar, who shall consider the liability of every one involved. The submission by counsel appearing for respondent No. 6 that there was no reference made against him and he was added as a party by the Arbitrator without any reference, will also require consideration. The only grievance made by the petitioner is regarding deletion of the name of respondent No. 6. What objection he can have on this count is not understood. If there is no reference against respondent No. 6, perhaps it may be difficult to add him as a party. In any event, this issue has to be considered by Deputy Registrar. Since the case has only been remanded and liability has to be considered by the Deputy Registrar, no case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction against the impugned order is made out. The writ petition is dismissed. Respondent No. 7 will deposit the costs, as imposed vide order dated 10.7.2012 and will show the receipt in this regard to the Deputy Registrar, where the case is fixed before him.