CW 8961/08 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8961/08 Birdi Lal Vyas Versus State & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : 03/07/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Sandeep Mathur, for petitioner *** Instant petition has been filed by petitioner assailing order of Additional Registrar, Kota passed in exercise of power u/s.74(2) of Rajasthahn Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 and so also order passed in appeal and revision preferred before the Additional Registrar [Appeal] and Co-operative Minister Ann.2 & Ann.3 affirming the finding recorded by Joint Registrar – as a consequence whereof, appeal & revision preferred by petitioner were rejected. Counsel for petitioner submits that charges were levelled against him in an inquiry initiated u/s.74(2) of the Act, 1965 and particularly, charge no.1 & 3 where finding has been recorded that he has misappropriated the money. Infact, there was no material on record and finding recorded in regard to charge no.1 & 3 is totally perverse. CW 8961/08 [2] Submission of Counsel further is that neither the appellate authority nor the revisional authority has appreciated record and infact there was no due against petitioner. The relevant receipt of one Shri Kesrilal who was the then Chairman of the Society, was produced by him to show that balance amount was deposited by petitioner that was not taken note of by the respondent authority on the premise that Shri Kesrilal by the time proceedings initiated died, as such, the receipt placed by him could not have been established. Joint Registrar in its order impugned dt.8th February, 1999 has taken note of submission made by petitioner about receipt furnished by the then Chairman Shri Kesrilal. Taking note thereof, finding has been recorded that cash book or audit report of the relevant year 1977-78 does not disclose about payment, if any received, available in their record and mere receipt in no manner can justify about the payment as alleged by petitioner being made to the then Chairman absolving him from liability. The said finding was affirmed by the appellate authority and so also by the revisional authority as well. CW 8961/08 [3] This court has gone through the order impugned and does not find any manifest error committed by the authority in passing order impugned, which may call for interference. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA8961CW08 3-7.doc