1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.3164/2002. : : Ramesh Chand Gupta Vs. Registrar, Co-operative & Ors. : : Date of Order 18.11.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.Suresh Kumar Sharma for the petitioner. Mr.M.L.Goyal for the respondent (s). Mr.Hemant Gupta, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Ramesh Chand Gupta challenging the order of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies dated 15.2.2002 and the order dated 23.8.2001 of the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that liability of the petitioner so far as the recovery on the basis of enquiry under Section 70 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 was confined to Rs.3292.49 whereas the liability for remaining amount of Rs.2245/- was fastened on Manohar Lal and of Rs.3680/- was fastened on Manohar Lal and Ramesh Chand jointly. This finding is reflected from both the impugned orders. The respondents have illegally issued 2 demand notice on 15.9.2001 for Rs.55081/-, which indicate that entire amount of Rs.9007.49 has been sought to be recovered from the petitioner together with 18% interest and the interest amount comes to Rs.46,073.51. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the writ petition and argued that the petitioner himself agreed to deposit the entire amount and, therefore, he cannot be permitted to now rely on that part of the finding in the impugned order whereby this amount was to be recovered in three parts fixing liability of different office bearers/employees of the cooperative societies. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned orders, I find that both Deputy Registrar and Registrar in their respective orders have followed enquiry report and have in so far as the petitioner is concerned, fixed his liability only for Rs.3392.49 and for remaining amount, liability of Manohar Lal and Ramesh Chand as indicated above, was fixed jointly. Demand notice appears to have been issued to the petitioner for recovery of the entire amount and for the amount of interest. A perusal of the demand notice indicates that while the principal amount was Rs.9007.49, the interest amount was more than five times i.e. Rs.46073.51. The part of the order of Registrar 3 and Deputy Registrar on which the reliance has been placed by the petitioner, entire liability could not be fastened on the petitioner especially in view of specific finding recorded by Registrar and Deputy Registrar which in turn is based on enquiry report. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in part. While upholding the order of Registrar dated 15.2.2002 and Deputy Registrar dated 23.8.2001, I set aside/modify the demand notice dated 15.9.2001 to the extent that the petitioner is required to pay only Rs.3392.49. The respondents are directed to issue fresh demand notice for the said amount of Rs.3392.49 with interest @ 6% per annum, which the petitioner would be liable to pay. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.18.