CWP No.2381 of 2001 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.2381 of 2001 Date of Decision:10.05.2010 The Bhiwani Central Coop. Bank LTD ...Petitioner Versus Commissioner and Secretary to Govt. Haryana Coop. Department Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and others .....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta Present: Mr. S.S. Dalal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Jindal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Advocate for Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate for the respondent No.3. ..... Rajan Gupta, J. (Oral) The petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ for quashing order Annexure P-2 passed by respondent No.1 whereby by he accepted the appeal and remanded the case back to the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Haryana for deciding afresh. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the civil suit there was no challenge to the proceedings regarding recovery of the amount allegedly embezzled by respondent No.3. He submits that respondent No.1 thus proceeded on a wrong premise as cause of action in the civil suit was totally different from the proceedings initiated under Section 102 of the Act. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 has however referred to Annexure R-3/1 and CWP No.2381 of 2001 2 submitted that court was, in fact, seized of the matter in the civil suit at the relevant time and thus respondent No.1 correctly decided to remand the case back to the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Haryana for deciding the same afresh. He further submits that since the case has been remanded to the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Haryana, he has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their assistance. It is evident that petitioner-Bank sought recovery of the amount alleged to have been embezzled by respondent No.3. It thus, initiated proceedings under Section 102 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984. The matter was decided by respondent No.2 and claim of the petitioner-Bank was accepted. This order was however set aside by respondent No.1 on the ground that Registrar should have restrained himself from deciding the matter during the pendency of the civil suit. Due to this reason order Annexure P-1 was set aside and matter was remanded back to the Registrar, for decision afresh. In view of the fact that the matter has already been remanded to the Registrar, hence, parties can raise all their pleas before the said authority. Impugned order (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.1 is upheld, the petition is thus dismissed with no order as to costs. It is directed that respondent No.2 shall endeavour to complete the proceedings very expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months. The parties are directed to be present before respondent No.2 on 10.06.2010. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 10.05.2010 sharmila CWP No.2381 of 2001 3