Civil Writ Petition No. 7294 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 7294 of 2010 Date of Decision: 30.8.2010 The Roshanpur S.C.L.O. Co-operative Society …Petitioner Versus Registrar Co-operative Societies, Punjab and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Mandeep Singh Talwar, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ambika Luthra, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. I.S. Saggu, Advocate for respondent No.3. None for respondent No.4. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that impugned orders dated 6.2.2010 (Annexure P8), passed in Case No. 515 of 2008 and dated 6.1.2010 (Annexure P9), passed in Case No. 532 of 2008, by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Patiala, be quashed. Kaur Singh was posted as Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Patiala, who had dismissed the appeal, vide order dated 24.3.2008, against the petitioner-Society, by observing as under:- “...The appellant had filed a civil suit No. 30 dated Civil Writ Petition No. 7294 of 2010 2 11.2.05 which is titled as “Gurdial Singh etc. vs. Rulda Ram etc. this suit is still pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Patiala and the Hon'ble Civil Court has dismissed the stay application. The nature of the relief sought in this civil suit is about dis-membership. The ld. Counsels of the parties present their written and oral arguments. The written arguments were noted in the judicial file. The decision of the appeal which was kept reserved on 18.1.08, was pronounced on 24.3.08. After hearing both the parties I do not agree with the submission of the appellant that he did not know about the decision dated 27.6.90. Furthermore, the present appeal is beyond the jurisdiction of the undersigned u/s 68 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act. Besides this a similar matter is already pending in the Civil Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed”. Aggrieved against the same, the revision petition was filed, which was entrusted by the Joint Registrar to the Deputy Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Patiala. By that time, Kaur Singh was promoted from the post of Assistant Registrar to that of Deputy Registrar, who heard the revision petition against his own decisions and disposed of the same vide his orders (Annexures P8 and P9). Learned counsel for the petitioner has made the following averments in the present writ petition:- Civil Writ Petition No. 7294 of 2010 3 “...23. That it is important to note that the Appellate Court was of the Assistant Registrar Kaur Singh. 24. That the above Assistant Registrar Kaur Singh was promoted and he became the Deputy Registrar. Acting in the new promoted position the respondents No.3 and 4 filed the revision before the same person (but in a new superior capacity). 25. That the same person in the Court of revision accepted the revision of the respondents No.3 and 4 and set aside his own order that he passed as an Appellate Court”. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that nobody can be a Judge of his own cause and sit in a judgment over his own order. It is stated that the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Patiala, ought to have not heard the revision petition and the same should have been assigned to some other person exercising similar powers. Mr. I.S. Saggu, Advocate, appearing for respondent No.3 has submitted that Kaur Singh, as Assistant Registrar, had observed that the appeal was beyond his jurisdiction under Section 68 of the Punjab Co- operative Societies Act, 1961. I have perused the order dated 24.3.2008 (Annexure P7), which contain a detailed discussion, considered the facts of Civil Court and also held in specific terms that he was not in agreement with the submissions advanced by the appellant. It is further submitted that when the revision petition was filed, it was entrusted by the Joint Civil Writ Petition No. 7294 of 2010 4 Registrar to the Deputy Registrar. Therefore, he had to hear the same. The arguments advanced by Mr. Saggu ought to be rejected at the outset as it gave no valid reason to the Presiding Officer to hear the revision against the order passed by him. In the present case, the person, who had dismissed the appeal, had allowed the revision petition. Without observing anything adverse, regarding the conduct of the concerned officer, this Court is of the view that the error which had crept in must be rectified. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders (Annexures P8 and P9) are set aside. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab, is directed to entrust the Case Nos. 515of 2008 and 532 of 2008 to the competent authority, for deciding afresh on merits. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 30, 2010 “DK”