IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WI W.P .C ...... 20 f PETITIONER:— 1. Shyamlal Kurmi DEFENDANT S/o Dwasram Kurmi, aged about 73 years, resident of Sipat Road, Sarkarlda, District-Bilaspur, C.G. VERSUS RESPONDENTS:— 1./State of Chhattisgarh through PLAINTIFF ‘ the Secretaly, Department of Co—operatives, DKS Bhavvan, Raipur v 2/Additiot1al Registrar, off1ce of the Registrar of Co—operative Societies, Chhattisgarh; 33’Joint Registrar, office of the Registrar of Co-operative Chhattisgarh, Societies, Raipur é‘rfDeputI; Registrar, Co—operati~ ve Societies, Composite Building, Dist: Bilaspur, C.G. 3f Bilaspur Griha Nirman Samiti through its Managin Director, Brihaspati Bazar Road, Bilaspur. PRIATE WRIT /WRITS g WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPRO— HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISQARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 4701 of 2011 SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotrii J. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 to 4. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 24 day ofAugust, 201 1) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the legality and validity of the order dated 03.08.2010 (Annexure P/l) passed by the Secretaly to the Government, Cooperative Department, in Revision Case No. 78/25/08. Further, the petitioner seeks a direction to accept the repayment as per the provisions of section 37-A of the Chllattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. . The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner was sanctioned a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as loan by the respondent No. 5 for construction of a residential building on 03.10.1981 (Annexure P/S). The petitioner was actually paid the first installment of a sum of Rs. 3000/- on 13.10.1981, second installment of Rs. 5000/— on 10.1 1.1981. The balance sum of Rs. 2000/- was adjusted towards'2% interest and supervision charge. A further loan of Rs. 5000/— was sanctioned out of which Rs. 4500/- was paid on 06.03.1984 and the balance amount of Rs. 500/- was also adjusted towards interest and supervision charge. According to the petitioner, in total, he was granted a sum of Rs. 12500/- as loan by the respondent No. 5. On 23.06.1997 (Annexure P/8). The petitioner made an application to the respondent No. 5 claiming benefit under section 37-A of the Act, 1960 as it was provided under the said Act that the interest chargeable by the respondent No. 5 may not be more than the principal sum. It was WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Present: Shri D.K.Swain, Advocate for the petitioner. 3’0 PETITIONER : Shyamlal Kurmi. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & further stated that the petitioner had obtained a loan of Rs. 12,657.10 against which, in total, the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 15000/-. The application of the petitioner dated 23.05.1997 (Annexure P/8) was rejected by the respondent No. 5. Thus, the dispute was referred to the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bilaspur. The Deputy Registrar, vide order dated 28.06.2006 directed to pay the loan amount with interest at the rate of 9% and penal interest 3% after adjusting the amount of installments already paid by the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of the order. . Being aggrieved, an appeal was flled by the petitioner as well as by the respondent No. 5 before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies. The Joint Registrar, vide order dated 30.07.2008 (Annexure P/2) remanded the case to the Trial Court with a direction to consider and decide the case afresh to the effect asto whether provisions of section 37-A of the Act, 1960 would be applicable in the case, or not. In an appeal filed by the respondent No. 5 against the order dated 28.6.2006 (Annexure P/4) the Joint Registrar vide order dated 29.10.2008 (Annexure P/3), partly allowed the appeal. Against the order dated 30.07.2008 (Annexure P/2) the petitioner preferred a second appeal before the Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Cooperative Department, which was dismissed vide order dated 03.08.2010 (Annexure P/l) upholding the order dated 29.10.2007 (Annexure P/3) on the ground that the period of loan was for a period of 10 years and as per the provisions of section 37-A of the Act, 1960, the purpose of loan for was for construction of building, thus, the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of provisions af section 37—A of the Act, 1960. Thus, this petition. . Shri Swain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. l has failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 37—A of the Act, 1960 as it was prevelant at the time of sanction and disbursement of the ioan, would be applicable. The petitioner had attempted to settle the matter by way of one time settlement but nothing had happened and the respondent No. 5 failed to respond to the representation of the petitioner for one time settlement. 1t is further contended that a further demand of Rs. 57 96,867/- over and above Rs. 15,000/— as against the loan amount of Rs. 12,500/— is excessive and arbitrary. . Prior to the present statute, section 37-A of the Act, 1960, which was amendment w.e.f. 17.01.2001, the provisions of section 37—A of the Act, 1960, reads as under: “37-A. Society not to recover or receive interest greater than the Principal. — Notwithstanding anything contained in any agreement or any law for the time being in force, no society shall, in respect of any loan advanced by it to a member belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or other members owning 5 acre irrigated or 10 acre un- irrigated land, whether before or after ‘commencement of the Madhya Pradesh Co- operativeSocities (Second Amendment) Act, 1979, which is repayable within a period not exceeding ten years from the date of its advance charge, recover or receive towards interest thereon during the currency of such loan a sum greater than the Principal and any sum charged, recovered or received in excess thereof shall, if the loan is subsisting be adjusted, towards repayment of the Principal till it is fully repaid and in any other case, shall be refunded to the debtor member within sixty days of the date on which the payment towards interest exceeds the limit aforesaid: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to loans advanced by a Development Bank and an Urban Co-operative Bank.” . Under the old provision, if the period of payment of the loan was for more than 10 years from the date of its advance charged, section 37-A was not applicable. By substitution, the provisions of section 37-A was made applicable only in the case of a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and all other provisions remained the same. Only the word “other members” which was provided in the old provision was delted. The petitioner has failed to repay the loan amount on or before 17.01.2001 when the earlier provisions of section 37-A of the Act, 1960 was applicable. . The respondent No. l, vide order dated 03.08.2010 (Annexure P/l) has not considered the facts properly whether the period of repayment of loan was for more than 10 years from the date of its advance. In the impugned order, the respondent No.1 has relied on a hire-purchase agreemen of one Shr Chandrashekhar Panikker and on that basis, it S} was found that it was for more than 10 years. Thus, the finding of fact is erroneous and without any substantial basis. 8. In View of the above, the impugned order dated 03.08.2010 (Annexure P/l) is set aside and the order dated 30.07.2008 (Annexure P/2) which was under challenge before the respondent No. 1, is also set aside. 9. The matter is remitted back to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chhattisgarh, to consider the matter a fresh and record specific finding on the period of repayment, actual amount of loan advanced to the petitioner and the amount of repayment, made by the petitioner, including all other related issues in the matter. 10. In View of the above, the petition is disposed of. No order asto costs. . Wye...» Sd/-’ Satish K. Agnihogri Judge ” Amit