IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No.192 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.4.2010 The Machhiwara Cooperative Agricultural Service Society, Machhiwara -----Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. Sushil Saini, Advocate for the appellant. --- Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge quashing attachment of property of the writ petitioners. 2. Case of the writ petitioners was that their property was illegally attached at the instance of the appellant-society without any legal basis. They were not given any opportunity before passing order of attachment. The attachment was beyond the power conferred under Section 65 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 LPA No.192 of 2010 (O&M) (for short, ‘the Act’). The reason for attachment was embezzlement by the Ex-Secretary-cum-Cashier of the Society who was reinstated on deposit of the amount being made. Son of the writ petitioners was serving as a salesman and was said to be involved in the scam which could not justify attachment of property of the petitioners. 3. The appellant defended the order of attachment on the plea that enquiry with regard to embezzlement by employees of the Society was pending and in such circumstances, attachment of property was justified. 4. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that the writ petitioners being neither members, agents, officers or employees of the society and no dispute having been raised against them, their property could not be attached. There was nothing to show that the property was purchased from the embezzled amount and the property was either ancestral or self acquired property, without any contribution of the son of the writ petitioners who may be involved in the embezzlement. Accordingly, order of attachment was quashed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2 LPA No.192 of 2010 (O&M) 6. Findings recorded by learned Single Judge have not been shown to be, in any manner, erroneous or illegal. 7. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. 8. The appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge April 22, 2010 (Alok Singh) ‘gs’ Judge 3