C.W.P. No. 10353 of 2010 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 10353 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: 14.11.2011 Pargat Singh ..........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. M.S. Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Kavita Arora, AAG, Punjab. Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Advocate for Mr. H.S. Batth, Advocate for respondent No.4. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. This petition has been filed for quashing of order dated 18.5.2010 passed by the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab, vide which, the revision filed under Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 in the light of the judgment of Single Bench in C.W.P. No. 19790 of 2008 has been dismissed. The case of the petitioner is that the present petition is squarely covered by the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Jasbir Singh and others Vs. Commissioner (Appeals) Jalandhar Division and others (2011-3) PLR 545. The main issue for consideration by this Court in the present case is whether a revision under Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 against the order passed in proceedings under the Act by the subordinate authorities is maintainable or not. The issue with regard to maintainability of revision has been settled in Full Bench judgment of this C.W.P. No. 10353 of 2010 (2) Court in Jasbir Singh's case (supra), wherein, it has been held as under:- “In view of the above discussion, we reach to the following conclusion:- (i) The State Government or the Registrar under Section 69 of the Punjab Act and the State Government under Section 115 of the Haryana Act can exercise its suo motu revisional jurisdiction on the application made by an aggrieved person, whether he is or not a party to the reference. (ii)The remedy of revision is barred only in case where appeal against the impugned order lies under Section 68 of the Punjab Act or under Section 114 of the Haryana Act. (iii)The remedy of revision is not barred in those cases where aggrieved person has a right of appeal under the Statutory Service Rules or Common Cadre Rules. An aggrieved party can challenge the order of Registrar or Deputy Registrar passed as an Appellate Authority under the Statutory Rules or Common Cadre Rules by filing a revision under Section 69 of the Punjab Act or under Section 115 of the Haryana Act as no remedy of appeal has been provided under Section 68 of the Punjab Act or under Section 114 of the Haryana Act against such order. But, if the appellate order is passed by the official of the Society and not by the Registrar or Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Society, no revision is maintainable against such an order. The revision is maintainable only against the order passed by the authority under the Act or a proceeding arising out of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. (iv)The remedy of revision either suo motu or otherwise cannot be invoked against an order passed by the Society. The C.W.P. No. 10353 of 2010 (3) said power can be exercised against the decision or order passed by the authority under the Act or a proceeding arising out of the Act or the Rules framed there-under. (v)The suo motu power of revision cannot be exercised by the State Government or the Registrar, as the case may be, where a revision under Section 69 of the Punjab Act or under Section 115 of the Haryana Act itself is not maintainable either on the ground that against the impugned order an appeal has been provided under Section 68 of the Punjab Act or under Section 114 of the Haryana Act or on any other ground. In case the Government or the Registrar, as the case may be, exercise suo motu power of revision on the application of an aggrieved party or otherwise, it must be specifically so stated in the order itself.” Learned counsel for the respondents has also not disputed the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and impugned order dated 18.5.2010 (Annexure P-5) is set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to hear the revision of the petitioner. The parties are directed to appear before respondent No.2 on 7.12.2011. November 14, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE