AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sandeep Mehta, J.
By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the legality and validity of the order Annexure P-9 dated 28.10.1998 passed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur in proceedings under Section 74(2) of the Cooperative Societies Act whereby the petitioner was directed to pay interest @ 15% on the belated recovery of the dues of Cooperative Society as well as the order Annexure-13 dated 18.4.2001 passed by the Addl. Registrar (Appeals) Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur, whereby the order passed by the Joint Registrar was upheld.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the excess grain was given to the traders in a bonafide manner because of the prevalent practice. He contends that there are many instances wherein the traders were given wheat lesser than what was billed and thus the Society had the occasion to retain the excess amount from the traders. Thus, he submits that if a balanced approach is taken it would be apparent that whatever delay occasioned in recovering the amount from the traders can be attributed to the general procedure of trading adopted by the Cooperative Societies. He submits that as the petitioner got recovered an amount of Rs. 202612.27/- from the traders and deposited the same back in the Society, the imposition of interest upon the petitioner is absolutely unwarranted. He, therefore, prays that the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside as being grossly illegal and arbitrary.
Per contra Mr. Dave, learned counsel representing the respondent Society submits that the petitioner, during the proceedings under Section 74 of the Cooperative Societies Act admitted that he was not authorized to give goods on credit to the traders. The petitioner also admitted that the liability to effect recovery was upon him and accordingly, for the delayed recovery of the amount owed to the Society, the petitioner is liable to pay interest as well. He contends that the petitioner''s own admission, which is reflected in the application Annexure-5 dated 8.7.1998 is sufficient to uphold the validity and legality of the orders under challenge.
Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the material available on record.
The charge-sheet which was served upon the petitioner under Section 74(1) of the Cooperative Societies Act was to the effect that the petitioner was entrusted with the charge of distributing wheat to the traders. The petitioner acted beyond his jurisdiction and extended credit facility to the traders even though no such authority vested in the petitioner to do so. A sum of Rs. 202612.27 towards the wheat given in advance remained due to be recovered upon which the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner. Faced with the adverse scenario of punishment, the petitioner deposited the amount in question much after issuance of the charge sheet. Admittedly, the amount was deposited after a delay of more than one year. Thus, for the loss caused to the Society, the Society was as of right, entitled to claim interest on the amount which remained unpaid. The responsibility for recovering the amount was that of the petitioner. The petitioner admitted in the application Annexure-5 that the dues of the Society could not be recovered but thereafter he had deposited the amounts in the Society''s account in the months of March, 1998 and June, 1998. However, the assertion of the petitioner that the amounts were deposited in March, 1998 and June, 1998 is falsified from the receipts which have been placed on record, as per which, the amounts in question were deposited in September, 1998 and October, 1998. Thus, the action of the petitioner in retaining the society''s fund cannot be termed as bonafide. The Society was entitled to claim interest thereupon. Since, the petitioner himself admitted his responsibility for the amount in question, he cannot raise a grudge against the interest claimed by the society on the belated payment.
Resultantly, the impugned order, whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit the interest for the period of delay in depositing the amount accruing to the respondent Society towards the sale of wheat cannot be termed to be illegal and unjust so as to call for any interference in the instant writ petition.
The writ petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed.
No costs.