C.W.P. No. 6653 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 6653 of 2011 Date of Decision : April 21, 2011 Harpal Singh and another .... PETITIONERS Vs. Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH * * * Present : Mr. M.S.Kang, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Harit Sharma, Advocate, for the Caveator/respondent No. 4. * * * AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) The present writ petition has been filed by two members of the Managing Committee of the Chomo Khurdpur Ltd. Chomo, Adampur, District Jalandhar challenging order dated 01.09.2010 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jalandhar, vide which an appeal filed by Tarlochan Singh-respondent No. 4, who is an employee of the Society, was allowed and the order dated 11.03.2011 passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jalandhar, vide which the revision preferred by two petitioners along with another C.W.P. No. 6653 of 2011 2 Committee member has been dismissed on the ground that the revision petition was not maintainable apart from the case on merits. Counsel for the petitioners, when confronted by this Court with regard to the locus of the petitioners to file the present writ petition before this Court, has placed reliance on Rule 15 (ii) of the Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Service Rules, 1997, to contend that the revision petition, which was preferred by the petitioners along with another member before the Joint Registrar, was maintainable as a perusal of the said Rule would indicate that both appeal and revision are provided under the said Rule. As per clause (i) of the said Rule, a restriction has been imposed as to who can file the appeal but there is no restriction imposed under the said Rule as to who would be permitted to file a revision petition. He, on this basis, contends that the petitioners being members of the Committee are aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies dated 01.09.2010 as well as the order dated 11.03.2011 passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies. I have considered the submission made by the counsel for the petitioners but I am unable to accept the contention, as has been raised by him. Rule 15 ibid reads as follows:- “15. APPEAL (i) An employee shall have a right to file an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 14 before the Deputy ?Registrar, Coop. Societies, within 60 days. (ii) REVISION A revision petition can be filed against the order C.W.P. No. 6653 of 2011 3 of Deputy Registrar within 60 days of the date of the order before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, of the Division whose decision shall be final binding and conclusive.” As per Rule 15 (i) of the Rules, the right of appeal, as submitted by the counsel for the petitioners, is restricted to the employees only. The reason is quite obvious that it would only be against an order which is passed against an employee. There could have been a decision by the majority of the members of the Committee passed in favour of an employee and, there again the other members of the Managing Committee of the Society would feel also aggrieved but that appeal has not been provided under the Statute, meaning thereby that it restricts only to employees who may be aggrieved by the decision taken by the Managing Committee. The revision is a continuation of an appeal and is only precursor and emanates after a decision has been taken on an appeal. If the right of appeal has been restricted to an employee and there again the members of the Society are not provided with statutory right merely because there is no such qualification attached in Sub-Rule (ii), the scope of the same cannot be enlarged to the extent of giving a right of revision to the some or any of the members of the Managing Committee. Only two, therefore, aggrieved parties against an earlier order passed in an appeal could either be an employee or the Co-operative society depending upon the outcome of the appeal. In the present case, the Co-operative Society has accepted the order passed by the Deputy Registrar dated 01.09.2010 (Annexure P- 4). It did not prefer the revision petition against the said order and, C.W.P. No. 6653 of 2011 4 therefore, the revision preferred by these two petitioners in this writ petition and another member of the Managing Committee was rightly held to be not maintainable by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies apart from the case being decided on merits. In this view of the matter, the present writ petition challenging the impugned orders by those very two members of the Society and in the light of the opinion of the Court, as expressed above, the present writ petition would not be maintainable. That apart, a Division Bench judgment of this Court in CWP No. 12186 of 1999 titled as Hakim Singh and others vs. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab and others decided on 30.08.1999, has also held that members of the Society could not challenge the order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies and the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. The only distinction, as has been addressed by the counsel for the petitioners while referring to this Division Bench judgment, is that the present writ petition is by the members of the Managing Committee who were party to the final dismissal order of the respondent No. 4 by the Society whereas the petitioners in CWP No. 12186 of 1999 were the members of the Society alone. This would not make any difference as far as the locus of the petitioners to prefer a revision is concerned. The writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) April 21, 2011 JUDGE pj