The Mansurpur (Chhintanwala) Co-Operative Nazul Land Society Ltd. vs The Registrar, Co-Operative Societies Punjab and others

I.S. Tiwana, J.—Shri Puran Ram,

Shrimati Paro,

Shri Sohan Singh,

Shri Maroo Singh,

Shri Kaku Ram,

Shri Jagat Singh,

Shri Pritam Singh,

Shri Maru Ram, and

Shri Kaka Singh.

Initially, the resolution for their expulsion was passed by the managing committee of the society on 15th April, 1963, and later this resolution was rectified by the general body of the society on 20th June, 1963. These persons, however, did not challenge the action of the managing committee or the society in any forum though they could concededly appeal against the same u/s 68(1)(d) of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (for short, the Act), to the Registrar within a period of sixty days. Then after about sixteen years of the expulsion of these members on 14th May, 1979, in the purported exercise of his jurisdiction u/s 69 of the Act the Registrar has set aside the above-noted action of the society vide his impugned order Annexure P1. He has directed the managing committee of the society to give to each of the expelled members or their nominees (since some of the expelled members died before the passing of order Annexure P1) an account of the amount due from them "on account of instalments, betterment expenses and other spendings jointly incurred relating to the business of the society along with interest at the prevailing bank lending rate." The society impugns this order on a wide variety of grounds including the one that the impugned order, Annexure P1, is totally without jurisdiction.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I find merit in the stand of the society. As has been pointed out above, the order of the society expelling the above-noted members was appealable to the Registrar within a period of sixty days (Sub-section (2) of Section 68 of the Act) but no such appeal was preferred by any of them. Section 69 of the Act under which the Registrar claims to have passed order Annexure P1 does not envisage any such revisional jurisdiction with the Registrar in matters in which an appeal lay u/s 68 of the Act. This section reads as follows:-

Revision. The State Government and the Registrar may, suo motu or on the application of a party to a reference, call for and examine the record of any proceedings in which no appeal u/s 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 appears 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.

A bare reading of this section clearly indicates that the Registrar can exercise revisional powers may be suo motu or on an application of a party to a reference, only in cases where no appeal u/s 68 of the Act lies to the Government or to him. It is thus patent that the impugned order is totally without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed. In the light of this conclusion of mine, I do not feel the necessity of examining any other contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner.

For the reasons stated above, this petition is allowed and order Annexure P1 is set aside but with no order as to costs.