Sita Ram Vs State of Hp and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

CWP No.4789 of 2021 and connected matters.

Decided on: 08.04.2026
_________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No.4789 of 2021
Sita Ram ....Petitioner Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors . …Respondents
_________________________________________________________________ 2. CWP No.4787 of 2021
Sita Ram ....Petitioner Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors . …Respondents
_________________________________________________________________ 3. CWP No.4788 of 2021
Sita Ram ....Petitioner Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors . …Respondents
_________________________________________________________________ 4. CWP No.4790 of 2021
Sita Ram ....Petitioner Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors . …Respondents _________________________________________________________________

¶4

2 -

¶5

5. CWP No.4791 of 2021

¶6

Sita Ram Versus	....Petitioner
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors .	…Respondents
___________________________________________ 6. CWP No.4792 of 2021	______________________
Sita Ram Versus	....Petitioner
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors .	…Respondents
___________________________________________ 7. CWP No.4793 of 2021	______________________
Sita Ram Versus	....Petitioner
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors .	…Respondents
___________________________________________ 8. CWP No.4794 of 2021	______________________
Sita Ram Versus	....Petitioner
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors .	…Respondents
___________________________________________ Coram	______________________
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
1 Whether approved for reporting? __________________________________________	_______________________

¶7

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

¶8

3 -

¶9

For the petitioner(s): Mr. Ajay Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Tarun Brakta, Advocate.

¶10

For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General the respondentsState, in all the matters.

¶11

Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate, for respondents No. 5, 7 & 8 in CWP Nos. 4789 of 2021, for respondent No.4 in CWP Nos. 4787, 4790, 4792 & 4794 of 2021 and for respondent No.5 in CWP Nos. 4788, 4791 & 4793 of 2025.

¶12

Mr. Karanveer Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.6 in CWP No. 4789 of 2021.

¶13

None for the remaining respondents in all the petitions.

¶14

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶15

All these writ petitions are against the order dated

¶16

29.01.2021 passed by the Additional Registrar Cooperative Societies, Himachal Pradesh, Dharmashala. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, these matters had been connected and were being listed accordingly. Involving almost common questions of law and facts these matters are being adjudicated together. For convenience, facts from lead case CWP No.4789 of 2021 have been mentioned hereinafter.

¶17

4 -

¶18

2. The case

¶19

2(i) An inquiry was conducted in terms of Section 69(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act 1968 (the Act in short) by the Inspector Co-operative Societies, Haroli, District Una on 04.01.2019. Pursuant to the inquiry, surcharge proceedings under Section 69(2) of the Act were conducted by the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Una, and order was passed on 10.10.2019.

¶20

2(ii) Respondents No. 5 to 8 (members of the different management committees of the petitioner-society) filed appeal under Section 93 of the Act before Additional Registrar Cooperative Societies, H.P. Dharamshala against the order dated 10.10.2019. Their appeal was allowed on 29.01.2021 (Annexure P-3). The impugned order dated 10.10.2019 (Annexure P-2) was set aside primarily on the ground that respondents No. 5 to 8 had not been associated in the proceedings held under Section 69(1) of the Act. The proceedings under Section 69(1) were held to have been conducted in breach of the principles of natural justice. For this reason, the proceedings under Section 69(2) of the Act were also held to be vitiated.

¶21

5 -

¶22

2(iii) It is in the above background that the concerned

¶23

Cooperative Society has instituted this writ petition for the grant of following substantive relief:-

¶24

“a. That impugned orders dated 29.01.2021, Annexure P- 3, in case No.249/2020, passed by the learned Additional Registrar Cooperative Societies, Dharamshala, H.P., i.e. respondent No.2, may very kindly be quashed and set aside and orders dated 10.10.2019, Annexure P-2, passed by learned Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Una, H.P., i.e. respondent No.3, may very kindly be upheld, in the interest of law and justice with directions to the authorities to take further action within time as is deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court on the basis of Annexure P-2 as per provisions of the Act and Rules.”

¶25

3. Heard learned counsel for both sides and

¶26

considered the case file.

¶27

4. Consideration

¶28

4(i) On 03.10.2018, the Inspector, Cooperative Societies, Haroli, was directed to conduct an inquiry in terms of Section 69(1) of the Act into the audit report of the working of petitioner-Cooperative Society. The Inspector Cooperative Societies set down to inquire into the matter and furnished his detailed inquiry report on 04.01.2019. Learned counsel on

¶29

both sides have taken me through this report (Annexure P-4).

¶30

6 -

¶31

On going through the same, it becomes evident that before furnishing the inquiry report, the concerned authority had given sufficient opportunity to all the stake holders including the members of all the Management Committees of the Cooperative Societies for the period in question.

¶32

4(ii) As per the inquiry report, a detailed questionnaire was also handed over to the members of different Management Committees of the Cooperative Societies for different periods on the subject matter. The members of the Management Committees including private respondents were given sufficient time to respond to the questionnaire. Some of the members of the Management Committee also furnished their responses to the said questionnaire. These responses furnished by the members of the management committee, including some of the private respondents herein, were duly considered by the concerned authority. On considering the responses furnished to the concerned authority, on examining the record of the petitioner-Society and looking to the mandate given to him, the concerned Authority i.e. the Inspector Cooperative Societies, Haroli, furnished his inquiry report on 04.01.2019, recommending initiation of

¶33

7 -

¶34

proceedings under Section 69(2) of the Act against several persons including the private respondents, who were members of the management committee of the petitionerSociety during different periods.

¶35

4(iii) In view of the exhaustive report of the Inspector Cooperative Societies, Haroli, dated 04.01.2019, which clearly indicates that principles of natural justice were actually complied with by giving sufficient opportunities to all the stake holders including the private respondents, who presented their case before him, it is not comprehended as to how the Additional Registrar Cooperative Societies, H.P., Dharamshala returned the findings in the impugned order dated 29.01.2021 about respondents No.5 to 8 being members of management committee having not been associated in proceedings under Section 69(1) of the Act. This finding of the Additional Registrar Cooperative Societies is de hors the factual position recorded in the inquiry report dated 04.01.2019 under Section 69(1) of the Act.

¶36

4(vi) Proceeding on the basis that respondents No. 5 to 8 had not been associated in the proceedings under Section 69(1) of the Act, the Additional Registrar Cooperative

¶37

8 -

¶38

Societies, H.P. Dharamshala, vide impugned order has quashed the order passed on 10.10.2019 by Assistant Registrar under Section 69(2) of the Act. The impugned order does not even discuss as to whether private respondents in the writ petition had been associated in surcharge proceedings under Section 69(2) of the Act.

¶39

In terms of Section 69(2) of the Act, after conducting the inquiry under Section 69(1) of the Act, opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the concerned persons. The order passed under Section 69(2) of the Act against respondents No. 5 to 8 (private respondents in

¶40

the writ petition) is available at Annexure P-2. The order details due association of all the stake holders including respondents No. 5 to 8 (members of different Management Committees of the petitioner –Society). The order records that all the members, not only were provided copies of the inquiry report under Section 69(1) conducted by the Inspector Cooperative Societies, Haroli, but they were also provided copies of audit report and all other documents which they requested for filing their reply/objections. Many members of the Management Committees of the petitioner-Society

¶41

9 -

¶42

furnished their reply/objection giving their version. These were duly considered by the Competent Authority while exercising powers under Section 69(2) of the Act, whereafter a detailed and comprehensive order was passed on 10.10.2019.

¶43

Despite this, the Additional Registrar Cooperative Societies, H.P, has somehow drawn the conclusion of “there being no dispute on facts about respondents No. 5 to 8 having not been associated in proceedings under Section 69(1) of the Act” as under: -

¶44

“It is undisputed fact that the petitioners were not associated in proceedings under section

¶45

69 (1) and as per the judgment of Hon'ble High Court CWP No. 1232 of 2005- decided on 28.03.2008 in the case titled as Kapoor Singh v/s State of H.P. and others 2008(2) case non associating the petitioner in proceedings under 69(1) is serious lapse as the right of parties are seriously affected and prejudice by noncompliance with the principles of natural justice and proceedings under section 69(2) could not succeed. Appellant must be given opportunity of being heard.

¶46

Moreover in this case there is no recommendation against the appellants in proceedings Under Section 69(1) and the proceeding could not be initiated or diverted against the other members of the society after the death of the wrong doer or person against whom the recommendations are made.

¶47

Even as per in the interim order of Hon'ble Apex Court of India on dated 08.01.2019 in case Title as

¶48

10 -

¶49

Chachian Cooperative Agriculture Service Society V/s Sudesh Kumari and others Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s) 18427/2019, it is held that the proceedings against the deceased not to be stayed meaning there by the proceedings are to be initiated/ proceeded against the legal heirs of the deceased

¶50

In view of the above discussion the Appeal have merits and is allowed and the impugned order dated 10-10-19 is set aside however the Assistant Registrar Co- Operative Societies, Una, has to initiate/carry the proceedings against the deceased Secretary as per law. Announced in open court today on 29-01-2021 and case file be consigned to record room.”

¶51

The finding returned by the Additional Registrar Cooperative Societies, H.P. Dharamshala that respondents No. 5 to 8 were not associated in proceedings under Section 69(1) of the Act, being admitted by the petitioner, have been disputed before me. These findings are otherwise contrary to the inquiry report dated 04.01.2019 under Section 69(1) of the Act and order dated 10.10.2019 passed under Section 69(2) of the Act by the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Una, H.P..

¶52

5. In view of above, the order dated 29.01.2021 passed by the Additional Registrar Cooperative Societies, H.P. Dharamshala, impugned in all the writ petitions is quashed and set aside. Matters are remanded to the Additional

¶53

11 -

¶54

Registrar Cooperative Societies, H.P. Dharamshala for a fresh decision on the appeals preferred by private respondents. The parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear the concerned Authority on 30.04.2026 . Keeping in view the age of the litigation, the Competent Authority is directed to expedite the decision of the appeals preferably within eight weeks. All rights and contentions of the parties on merits of the matter are left open for adjudication.

¶55

The writ petitions to stand disposed of in the

¶56

above terms.

¶57

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also

¶58

to stand disposed of.

¶59

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶60

April 8, 2026 R.Atal

Sita Ram v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sita Ram v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hpseb Ltd. Vs M/S Ultra Tech Cement Ltd.

Sanjay Kumar Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Others

M/S Rana Enterprises Vs State of Hp and Others

Sunder Singh Vs Union of India and Others

Kashmir Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Neha Gangwal Vs State of Hp