IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 6061 of 2008 Date of Decision: Oct. 22 2008 Balwinder Singh and others ................................. Petitioners Versus Gurdaspur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Gurdaspur and others .................................. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta Present: Mr. Vipul Dhamani, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ashwani Prashar, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Kuldeepak Jhingan, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3,5,7,8,9 and 12. .... ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. (Oral) The petitioner has impugned the order (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.1 vide which order-Annexure P5 has been set aside and the case has been remanded to the Registrar Co-operative Societies, Punjab, for passing fresh orders on merit. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab, could not have entertained the revision petition as the same was in the nature of a second revision. This argument of the petitioner has been controverted by the counsel for respondent No.2. Learned counsel submits that this case was a case of first revision petition under Section 69 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act. Learned counsel relies on the judgment in Gurnam Kaur v. State of Punjab and others 1992 PLJ 658 in support of his contention wherein it has been held as under:- “To conclude, it is held that the decision in Hardial Singh's case does not lay down the law correctly. In the exercise of revisional jurisdiction it would be immaterial as to whether action was taken suo motu or at the instance of aggrieved or concerned party. If the revisional authority comes to the conclusion after going through the records of the case pending or decided by the subordinate authority that such order needed modification or annulment and hence modifies or annuls such an order and passes appropriate order, the same would be within jurisdiction.” After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the matter has been remanded to the Registrar Co- operative Societies, Punjab, by the Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab, vide the impugned order and the remedy of the petitioner has been kept alive. Resultantly, we find no ground to interfere in the impugned order and, accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. ( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA ) JUDGE ( RAJAN GUPTA ) JUDGE 22.10.2008 rupi