Dismissed

Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Feb 2012CWP/1276/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court examined a writ petition praying for removal of a cooperative society secretary and initiations of disciplinary action. The court held the petition was not maintainable against the society and dismissed it, imposing costs on the petitioner for suppressing material facts regarding his own default.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed against the Society and the 1st respondent. Costs of Rs.20,000 imposed on the petitioner payable to the Punjab State Legal Services Authority.

Ranjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Cooperative Societies | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No.1276 of 2011

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.1276 of 2011 Date of Decision: 09.02.2012

Ranjit Singh

..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

¶9

..... Respondents

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA

¶11

Present: Mr. J.S. Rana, Advocate, for Mr. H.C. Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. N.S. Pawar, Addl. AG, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 & 2.

¶12

Mr. Ashwani Prashar, Advocate, for respondent Nos.3 & 4.

¶13

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.

¶16

The petitioner is a member of the 3^rd respondent – The Nadiali Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Ltd., Nadiali (for short “the Society”). He has brought this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. There is no order of Court or Tribunal assailed in this petition for which this Court exercises supervisory jurisdiction. Prayers made in this petition with reference to Article 227 of the Constitution are

¶17

CWP No.1276 of 2011

¶18

-2-

¶19

therefore rejected.

¶20

The petitioner has sought a mandamus to the RCS, Punjab – the 2^nd respondent to remove the 4^th respondent Raghubir Singh from the post of Secretary of the Society on grounds of embezzlement and gross misconduct. It is also prayed that the RCS should initiate appropriate disciplinary action against the 4^th respondent under the Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Service Societies Rules, 1997 and inflict the 4^th respondent major punishment. The prayer is made on the allegation that the 4^th respondent has been held guilty of embezzlement or misappropriation of funds of the Society. It is averred that recoveries have already been made and the loss has been made good but that by itself does not give a clean chit to the 4^th respondent. It is averred that one Harnek Singh, member of the Society had raked up this issue by approaching this Court in CWP No.11094 of 2009 and had sought directions to RCS to take appropriate decision/action against the 4^th respondent in terms of Section 27 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. That writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 27.7.2009 (P-1) with a direction to the State to take decision on the representation of the said petitioner in the light of the enquiry reports, if any, in accordance with law. Harnek Singh thereafter filed another writ petition bearing CWP No.12095 of 2010 which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition by impleading the Nadiali Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Limited, Mohali. That order was passed on 18.11.2010 and is reproduced in para 15 of the petition. It appears that Harnek Singh did not pursue the matter thereafter. The petitioner has relied upon a letter sent by the Public Information Officer cum Joint Registrar

¶21

CWP No.1276 of 2011

¶22

-3-

¶23

Cooperative Societies, Patiala addressed to one Manphul Singh of a request for information in respect of an enquiry into the affairs of the Society (P-2). The request letter of Manphul Singh has not been placed on record. However, a reading of the letter (P-2) discloses an enquiry regarding rate of interest chargeable from members. The reply states that such rate is determined and fixed by the RCS and thereafter it is stated that - “therefore, resolution on this matter passed by the Managing Committee of the Society is patently illegal. No member can be charged interest at the rate above the rates fixed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies.” This letter does not throw any light specifically on the prayers made in this petition. Still further, this Court finds that a legal notice dated 27.04.2010 was issued to the RCS etc. This notice has been issued on instructions of Harnek Singh - the petitioner who withdrew his earlier writ petition. The RCS replied to the notice vide communication dated 02.06.2010 (P-7). The reply stated that no action under Section 27 of the Act was possible as the term of the then Managing Committee expired on 24.09.2008. An exercise has been carried out in compliance of the orders of this Court wherein it was found that then Managing Committee of the Society has passed the resolution dated 30.06.2006 unanimously deciding to charge the excess rate of interest from its members so that the Society may survive and function smoothly. The law did not authorize charging of excess interest except with approval of RCS. Therefore, when this fact was brought to the notice of the Society that excess interest could not be charged, the Society passed resolution to credit excessive interest charged from members to their respective accounts. It is further stated that the expenditures incurred were with the approval of the

¶24

CWP No.1276 of 2011

¶25

-4-

¶26

Managing Committee and that stationary items etc. would be purchased only from DCU of the District or in its absence from the DCU of the adjoining District. It was also informed that the Chief Auditor, Cooperative Societies, Punjab was advised to look into the allegations against the Managing Committee members by the Audit Officer of helping the Managing Committee members during special audit. At the stage of the letter, the report was awaited. The amount spent on the eye operation of Surmukh Singh stated to be father of the 4^th respondent and on meals and taxi charges have been obtained and deposited into the accounts of the Society with a direction not to incur such expenditure in future. These expenses were approved and passed by the General Body of the Society and not by the 4^th respondent alone. It is another matter that it was not found to be in good stead by the enquiry officer.

¶27

On notice of motion having been issued, separate replies have been filed on behalf of the State functionaries i.e. respondent Nos.1 and 2. A separate reply has been filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4. In the latter reply, preliminary objections have been taken to the effect that the Nadiali Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Ltd. has ceased to exist in the month of August 2010. The Society is now registered in the name of The Nadiali Cooperative Multi Purpose Service Society Ltd., Nadiali. A serious objection has been taken as to the maintainability of the present writ petition inasmuch as no writ lies against a cooperative society simpliciter. It is asserted that the share money of the State Government in the Society out of the total working capital of the Society is zilch. The State has no deep and pervasive control over the affairs of the Society.

¶28

CWP No.1276 of 2011

¶29

-5-

¶30

Mr. Ashwani Prashar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4 submits that the Society has not been established or constituted by or under the Constitution of India or any other law made by Parliament or the State Legislature. In absence of any functional control of the State over the affairs of the Society, it cannot be said to be an other authority and the character of which, brings it within the fold of Articles 12 and 226 of the Constitution. In support of his contention, Mr. Prashar relies on the law laid down in General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Sultanpur, U.P. v. Satrughan Nishad and Ors., J.T. 2003(8) S.C. 235, S.S. Rana v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies and another J.T. 2006(5) S.C. 186, Prem Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others CWP No.10806 of 2006 decided on 20.07.2006, Bhajan Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others CWP No.2595 of 1991 decided on 5.9.2007, Gurmej Singh v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab and others CWP No.16478 of 1999 decided on 19.9.2007, Pardeep Kaur and others v. The Jalandhar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and others CWP No.2486 of 1987 decided on 3.4.2008 & Ranjit Singh v. The Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh and another CWP No.6776 of 1999 decided on 13.8.2010. The State in its written statement has raised an objection that the State has been wrongfully impleaded through Financial Commissioner, Revenue and not the Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab. It is pointed out that the appointing and punishing authority of any employee working in any Cooperative Agricultural Society in the State of Punjab is its Managing Committee. Disciplinary action like exclusively in the domain and jurisdiction of the Managing Committee of the Cooperative Society and

¶31

CWP No.1276 of 2011

¶32

-6-

¶33

the State has no role whatsoever to play in the matter. The State authorities get activated only in appeal against the orders passed by a Managing Committee imposing punishments. Therefore, the State or the RCS, Punjab is not legally obligated to issue any direction as sought for in this petition. The State has, however, pointed out a startling fact which should dislocate the petitioner in the present petition for grant of any relief is that the petitioner is a defaulter of a principal amount of Rs.70,000/- of the Society. A resolution dated 11.05.2010 was passed by the Society and duly transmitted to the Inspector incharge with the recommendation that the land belonging to the defaulters be attached so as to disable them from disposing it off. Consequently, land belonging to the petitioner has been attached by the ARCS, SAS Nagar, Mohali vide order dated 09.08.2010. The petitioner is obviously nursing a grudge against the Society and the 4^th respondent and smarting under action taken against him. The attachment order has been put on record as Annexure R2/1. The 3^rd and 4^th respondents in their written statement have also said much the same. These vital facts have not been divulged, in the petition and, therefore, the petitioner has come to this Court with unclean hands. He is guilty of suppression of material facts.

¶34

This Court is of the view that in terms of the law laid down in the judgment cited by Mr. Prashar, no writ is maintainable against the 3^rd respondent. Neither are the 1^st and 3^rd respondents under a statutory duty to answer the prayers made in this petition or to redress the grievance of the petitioner. The petitioner has used information in this petition not directly communicated to him but to one Manphul Singh. The legal notice was not issued by him. It was issued by Manphul Singh. Here is a case where a pot

¶35

CWP No.1276 of 2011

¶36

-7-

¶37

is trying to call a kettle black.

¶38

After having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have no hesitation in dismissing this petition with Rs.20,000/- as costs for suppression of material facts. Costs be paid to the Punjab State Legal Services Authority within three months from today. If the cost is not deposited the office shall list the case for appropriate orders.

¶39

Ordered accordingly.

¶40

(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE

¶41

09.02.2012 manju

Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mander Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rp Aggarwal Vs Hlr and Dev.Corp.Td.

Rajbir Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Banta Singh Vs Joint Reg., Coop. Soc. Patiala & Ors.

Manjinder Singh Vs Joint Registrar, Coop. Societies, Patiala & Ors.

Ajaib Singh Vs Joint Registrar, Coop. Societies, Patiala & Ors.