Dismissed

Manohar Lal Agarwal v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC20 Sept 2023CW/4501/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition challenging recovery of Rs. 15,929/- for stock shortage when the petitioner was in judicial custody. The High Court upheld the appellate and revisional authorities' findings that the petitioner was responsible, noting the appellate order adequately addressed the reasons for recovery and reasonable hearing was afforded.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; recovery of Rs. 15,929/- affirmed.

Manohar Lal Agarwal Vs State and Ors. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:30828]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4501/2002

¶4

Manohar Lal Agarwal S/o Sh. Biharilal Ji Agarwal, aged 46 years, Resident of Abu Road, Sirohi.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Rajasthan through the State Minister, Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan Government, Jaipur.

¶8

The Additional Registrar (Appeals), Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur.

¶9

The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sirohi.

¶10

The Manager, Agriculture Marketing Cooperative Societies Ltd., Abu Road, District Sirohi.

¶11

		----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. R.S.Saluja.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Nitin Trivedi.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶13

Order

¶14

20/09/2023

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

The present writ petition has been filed against the orders dated 14.08.2001, 31.08.1999 and 31.10.1998 as well as the Audit Report prepared by the Manager for the year 1994-95.

¶17

Briefly noted facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Salesman in the respondent No.4- Cooperative Society and while working as such, he was arrested on 19.05.1995 for the offence under section 302 IPC. While, the petitioner was in judicial

[2023:RJ-JD:30828]

[CW-4501/2002]

(2 of 5)

custody, the respondent No.4 took over the charge of the shop which was under the control of the petitioner and articles worth Rs.15,929/- were found short. The proceedings before the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies were undertaken and the Assistant Registrar vide its order dated 31.10.1998 while exercising the powers under section 74(2) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 ordered recovery of Rs.15,929/- along with interest @ 18% from the petitioner. The petitioner assailed validity of this order before the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies by way of filing an appeal. The Additional Registrar vide its order dated 25.08.1999 dismissed the appeal after dealing with the arguments raised before him. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Revisional Authority and the Revisional Authority vide its order dated 14.08.2001 dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner and affirmed the orders passed by the Assistant Registrar and the Additional Registrar. Hence, the present petition was filed.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the order passed by the Assistant Registrar is totally a nonspeaking order as no reasons have been given while passing the order of recovery against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that proper opportunity to place on record the factum of shortfall of the stock was also not provided to the petitioner as nobody from his family was called at the time of taking stock of the seized shop. Learned counsel further submits that there is violation of Section 37 of the Cooperative Societies Act of 1965 (for short ‘Act of 1965’). He submits that once the order passed by

[2023:RJ-JD:30828]

[CW-4501/2002]

(3 of 5)

the first appellate authority is found laconic, the lacuna cannot be filled in by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition filed by the petitioner may be allowed and the recovery of Rs.15,929/- may be quashed.

¶27

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that after the petitioner was arrested and was in judicial custody, the respondents constituted a committee comprising of five members and had taken the charge of the shop in the presence of members of the committee and also taken stock of the shop. While checking the stock, they found stock of Rs.15,929/- was short in the shop which was under the control of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that appropriate permission was taken from the Assistant Registrar before the shop under the control of the petitioner was seized. It is also contended that the arguments raised by the petitioner were properly dealt with in the appeal preferred by the petitioner and while passing the order dated 25.08.1999, the appellate authority took note of each argument. Learned counsel further submits that even the revision petition filed by the petitioner was also rejected and all the three authorities held that the petitioner is responsible for shortfall of the stock found in the shop at the time when the shop was seized and the stock was taken. He further submits that since concurrent findings of facts have been recorded by the three authorities, therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner may be dismissed.

¶28

I have considered the submissions made at the bar and also gone through the relevant record of the case.

[2023:RJ-JD:30828]

[CW-4501/2002]

(4 of 5)

The fact of the petitioner having been arrested in a case registered under section 302 of IPC is not disputed and while the petitioner was undergoing imprisonment, the respondents thought it proper to take charge of the shop which was under the control of the petitioner and since, the shop was having some perishable articles, therefore, it was necessary to take control of the shop also. The respondents in all fairness took appropriate permission from the Assistant Registrar and thereafter, constituted a committee comprising of five members to take available stock from the shop after the same was being taken under control by the respondents.

¶33

It is noted that though the order passed by the Assistant Registrar is a non-speaking order but the appellate authority has dealt with each & every contention raised by the petitioner in the appeal and after discussing each ground raised, it came to the conclusion that the procedure followed by the respondents while taking stock of the shop in question, does not suffer from any infirmity. It was established in the fact finding inquiry that the stock amounting to Rs.15,929/- was found short in the shop and therefore, the same was liable to be recovered from the petitioner.

¶34

The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of section 37 have not been followed in the present case is noted to the rejected only on the ground that section 37 has no application in the present set of facts.

¶35

The concurrent findings of facts recorded by the three authorities below do not warrant any interference by this court as this court is of the view that reasonable opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner to defend his case and the orders

¶36

(5 of 5) [CW-4501/2002]

¶37

[2023:RJ-JD:30828]

¶38

passed by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority are well reasoned and speaking. The writ petition is bereft of merit, therefore, the same is dismissed.

¶39

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶40

8-AnilSingh/-

Manohar Lal Agarwal v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manohar Lal Agarwal v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ghamee Bishnoi Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Amandeep Brar Vs State of Rajasthan

Ujjawal Joshi Vs the State of Rajasthan

Madhu Gaur Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhavesh @ Bunty Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashok Kumar Vyas Vs State and Ors.