IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.2223 OF 2008 SURESH PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE BAHADUR SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA RAJAPUR, POLICE STTION SRIKRISHNAPURI, DISTRICT AND TOWN PATNA VERSUS 1. BIHAR STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING UNION LTD. BISCOMAUN BHAWAN, EAST GANDHI MAIDAN, POLICE STATION GANDHI MAIDAN, DISTRICT PATNA THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING UNION LTD. BISCOMAUN BHAWAN, EAST GANDHI MAIDAN, POLICE STATION GANDHI MAIDAN, DISTRICT PATNA 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIATE, PATNA 4. THE REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIATE, PATNA ********* 4 18/10/2011 The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24.09.2007 passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies-respondent no. 4 (Annexure-1) and the order dated 13.04.2004 passed by the Joint Registrar, Co- operative Societies-respondent no. 3 (Annexure-2). By the order dated 13.04.2004 as contained in Annexure-2, the petitioner along with two others were awarded a cost of Rs. 3,09,166/- for alleged shortage in the godown of the BISCOMAUN during the period July, 1983 to 09th December, 1983. The Auditors’ team which made inspection in the year 1990 came to the conclusion that the petitioner was responsible for the loss in the production 2 of Di-Ammonium Phosphate fertilizers. Relying on the show cause submitted by the petitioner, it is submitted that the Joint Registrar, Co- operative Societies while passing the order on 13.04.2004 has not taken into account any of the facts and submission made in the show cause. The entire case of the petitioner has been virtually disposed of in three lines. Counsel for the petitioner points out that the audit took place in the year 1990 whereas the case was filed three years after the report was submitted. It is also pointed out that the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies has reserved the order on 10.04.2002 and delivered the judgment on 13.04.2004, i.e. after a delay of two years. Basically, therefore, the petitioner challenges the order as contained in Annexure-1 and 2 on the ground that the judgment of the Joint Registrar, Co- operative Societies was delivered after a delay of two years and on the ground that it is virtually a non- speaking order, as it does not take into consideration the facts and the points raised on behalf of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of 3 Bhagwandas Fatechand Daswani & Others vs. HPA International & Others [2000 (2) PLJR (SC) 3], wherein it has been held that if the judgment is delivered after a long delay, it raises the unnecessary speculation in the minds of the parties and such judgments ought to be set aside. In this case, this Court finds that the principle laid down by the Supreme Court would be applicable inasmuch as not only is the judgment delivered after a delay of two years but because of the fact that the judgment is virtually a non-speaking order. Considering the facts aforesaid, this Court quashes Annexure-2 i.e. the order of the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies. The obvious corollary to the conclusion aforesaid is that Annexure-1 would also go as it is based on the so-called findings reached by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies in the order dated 13.04.2004 (Anexure-2). The matter is remanded back to the respondent no. 3 to consider the show cause of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This writ application is allowed in the 4 aforesaid terms. The petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this order along with the writ application before the respondent no. 3 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)