L.P.A. No. 1784 of 2011 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … L.P.A. No. 1784 of 2011 Date of decision: 19.10.2011 Anant Ram ..Appellant Versus The Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Narain Raina Present: Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the Appellant. .. 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? Rajiv Narain Raina,J. 1. The instant Letters Patent Appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 13.7.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner as Secretary of the Teora Cooperative Credit and Service Society embezzled money from the society. He was then serving on a post of confidence and had caused loss of `10,05,518/-to the Society. The matter was referred to the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kurukshetra under Section 101(2) of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 (for short, the “Act”). The proceedings before the Deputy Registrar concluded in an award against the appellant and it was ordered that he was liable to pay L.P.A. No. 1784 of 2011 2 `10,05,518/- along with interest at the rate of 12 % per annum. The pith and substance of the charge against the appellant was that he had recovered lacs of rupees from the members of the society which was his duty but had failed to deposit the same in the designated bank and thus had embezzled an amount of `8,99,220/-on the date of passing of the award. The liability was quantified at `10,05,518/- with the direction that interest at the rate of 12 % would run on the principal amount. The award is dated 16.8.1990. The petitioner's request for payment in installments of the amount awarded against him was accepted by order dated 31.12.2004 and the amount was paid in two installments on 31.12.2005 and 28.12.2006, upon which on a separate application, the appellant's land measuring 41 kanals 13 marlas was released on 31.1.2007. The award attained finality. However,a lacuna remained inasmuch as the appellant had not paid the interest on the principal amount awarded against him. It was in these circumstances that an order was made on 20.4.2007 (P-10) impugned in the petition reattaching the land. This order was passed by the Deputy Registrar exercising powers under Section 111 of the Act and that such attachment would continue till the satisfaction of the order in the surcharge proceedings which had attained finality as the appellant did not agitate the matter further. 3. Mr. Munish Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant has been heard at length. He submits that once the order of release of land was passed by the Deputy Registrar, the successor of Deputy Registrar had no jurisdiction to pass the order reattaching the property. We are not impressed by the argument. The basic order dated 31.1.2007 itself is an unlawful order inasmuch as it ignores the award of amount with 12 % interest, which the appellant was bound to pay, so long as that order was not rescinded, revoked or varied by a subsequent order passed by a L.P.A. No. 1784 of 2011 3 competent authority. We cannot discount on a plain reading of the order (P-8) dated 31.1.2007, some extraneous considerations which may have been at work. It does not appear to be a mere lapse. In any case, in both the events, the order (P-10) is legally unexceptionable in law and in equity. 4. The learned Single Judge has correctly concluded that there was continuing liability upon the appellant to satisfy the award dated 16.8.1990 in toto. 5. We uphold the order and dismiss the appeal. (M.M.KUMAR) (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE October 19,2011 nk