Wadhawa Singh vs Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mansa

N.S. Rattan.

These are two connected revision petitions No. BTD40/1985 and No. BTD13/1986 filed under Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. The case No. BTD40/1985 is the main case and case No. BTD13/1986 is the application for initiating contempt proceedings. One order will dispose of both the cases. The facts of the case are as listed in the revision petitions.

Taking up case No. BTD40/1985, learned counsel for the petitioner state that the award against the petitioner has been passed on the basis of audit report only and subinspector of the society appeared before the arbitrator who passed the award exparte against the petitioner. So far as the registered notice having been issued to the petitioner is concerned, the learned counsel referred to paragraph 2 of the revision petition wherein it has been stated that he does not reside at the place of address of the notice although his property is situated in the same village. he stated that the award being based only on the audit report is illegal in view of the authority 1980LLR, page 34, and the recovery proceedings passed on that award are also illegal. The learned counsel stated that the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed as time barred although it is clearly established that the petitioner got the copy of the award only on 13.2.1985 and filed the appeal on 14.2.1985. Thus there is no delay on the part of the petitioner and learned Assistant Registrar was wrong in dismissing the appeal as time barred. He, therefore, requested that the revision petition may be accepted and the impugned order of the Assistant Registrar and arbitrator may be set aside.

So far as the case No. BTD13/1986 is concerned learned counsel referred to para 3 on the petition wherein allegation of Contempt of the Court against the Deputy Registrar has been explained in detail. The learned counsel stated that the sale notice is dated 30.11.1984 and the notice for auction was published on 31.12.1984. Column No. 5 of the auction notice refers to the property to be sold by auction but it was different property which has been mentioned in the sale certificate. This property which is included in the sale certificate has been leased out by the petitioner privately to respondent No. 5 and with a view to help the respondent No. 5, the sale certificate has been issued concerning the property which has been leased out by the petitioner to respondent No. 5. he further stated that respondent''s plea that since the sale certificate has been issued the contempt petition and the revision petition against the sale certificate has become infructuous cannot be accepted in view of the authority 1984PLJ, page 470 wherein it has been held that a wrong sale certificate can be cancelled. He, therefore, requested that the sale certificate may be set aside and case be sent to Hon''ble High Court for initiating contempt proceedings against the Deputy Registrar.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. So far as case No. BTD40/1985 is concerned, it is clearly established that the proceedings before the arbitrator were initiated on the basis of audit report and the award has also been passed on the basis of the audit report. But the authority 1980LLR, page 34 is very clear and specific and audit report cannot be considered as the definite proof and evidence unless supported by other evidence. Therefore, I accept the plea of the petitioner and revision petition is accepted. The impugned order of the learned Assistant Registrar and the award given by the arbitrator are set aside and the case is remanded to Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Mansa.

So far as the case No. BTD13/1986 is concerned, since the award is held to be illegal, any sale conducted for realisation of the amount involved as per the award is also illegal. Moreover there is material difference in the description of the property as mentioned in the auction notice and as recorded in the sale certificate. Therefore, revision petition No. 13BTD/1986 is partially accepted to the extent that the sale certificate is ordered to be cancelled. However, no contempt is committed by the Deputy Registrar as the sale was held on 31.12.1984 and only certificate is issued now while the stay granted to the petitioner was against the recovery proceedings. The stay so granted had in fact become infructious. Therefore, the request for initiating contempt proceedings against the Deputy Registrar is dismissed.

The petitioner is directed to appear before the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Mansa on 18.2.1988 who should appoint the arbitrator afresh and decide the case after giving full opportunity to he petitioner.

Announced.