SCA/6119/2001 1/7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6119 of 2001 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA ===================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ===================================================== ANAND MERCANTILE CO-OPERATIVE BANK - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s) ===================================================== Appearance : Mr Hardik Dave for HL PATEL ADVOCATES for Petitioner(s) : 1, Mr Hemang H.Parikh, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, 2 RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 3. ===================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA SCA/6119/2001 2/7 JUDGMENT Date : 08/01/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner, a Co-operative Bank, has challenged the order dated 29.09.1999 (Annexure-D) made by the Revisional Authority in exercise of powers under Section 155 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (the Act). 2. The petitioner was awarded Audit Classification Class-B by respondent No.3 vide order dated 13.09.1996. Being aggrieved, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal before respondent No.2 who by order dated 20.05.1997 set aside the order of respondent No.3 and awarded Class-A. This order of Appellate Authority was taken up in revision in exercise of suo-motu powers under Section 155 of the Act. By the impugned order dated 29.09.1999, the Revisional Authority did not agree with the order of the Appellate Authority and after setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority restored the order made by respondent No.3, the Special Auditor. SCA/6119/2001 3/7 JUDGMENT 3. The learned advocate for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order by inviting attention to the provisions of Section 155 of the Act to submit that the powers of revision can be exercised only for the limited purpose of examining legality or propriety of any decision or order passed by any officer sub-ordinate to the Revisional Authority; the power of revision could also be exercised as regards regularity of the proceedings conducted by such officer. That in the present case, there was nothing illegal or improper in the decision or order made by the Appellate Authority nor was any irregularity pointed out in the proceedings conducted by the Appellate Authority. Therefore, the Revisional Authority was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Appellate Authority by setting aside the same and restoring the order made by respondent No.3, the Special Auditor after modifying the same. The learned advocate exhaustively read from the order of the Appellate Authority to contend that the said order was correct and justified both in law and on facts. That considering the past history, namely, in past for all the years the petitioner-Bank SCA/6119/2001 4/7 JUDGMENT had been awarded Class-A it was submitted that there was no wide variation so as to downgrade the petitioner-Bank from Class-A to Class-B. 4. On behalf of the respondents, the learned AGP referred to and relied upon the averments made in the Affidavit-in-reply and also submitted that the order made by the Appellate Authority was correctly interfered with and the Revisional Authority having assigned cogent reasons, this Court should not enter into discussion of appreciation of evidence. 5. There is no dispute as to the fact that while passing the order dated 13.09.1996 the Special Auditor has acted in consonance with the “Norms for Audit and Classification of Primary (Urban) Co- operative Banks”. The only question that would then survive is as to whether the order made by the Revisional Authority suffers from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. As can be seen from the impugned order, the Revisional Authority has SCA/6119/2001 5/7 JUDGMENT examined the merits of the respective contentions and come to the conclusion that not only is the order made by the Appellate Authority not legal and proper but even the order made by the special Auditor is required to be modified. The Special Auditor awarded 47 marks on the basis of the norms. The appellate authority made addition of 14 marks to convert the Audit Classification from Class-B to Class-A. However, while setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority, the Revisional Authority has partially accepted the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and enhanced the total marks available to the petitioner to 49 from 47 marks awarded by the Special Auditor. This exercise has been carried out under the head of Lavad Suits and action for recovery. However, after referring to the Norms and the Standing Instructions, the Revisional Authority has found that the total loan in the priority sector is less than 40% and total loan to weaker sections of the Society is less than 15% and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any marks under the said head. That the Appellate Authority having granted 6 marks under the said head has committed an SCA/6119/2001 6/7 JUDGMENT error in law in light of the Norms / Standing Instructions. Similarly, various irregularities and improprieties have been found under the head of loans and advances. Instances have been given wherein advances have been made to parties wherein the Managing Board of the petitioner-Bank has rejected the application for loan. Similarly, it has been found that in cases of cash credit the stock statements have not been verified. It is not necessary to multiply the instances and reiterate the reasons advanced by the Revisional Authority. Suffice it to state that the order reflects total application of mind and appears to have been passed after taking into consideration the merits of the submissions made. The decision making process is not erroneous in any manner whatsoever and in absence of any legal infirmity in the decision making process, this Court would not sit as an Appellate Court to re-examine and re-appreciate the evidence. 6. In the circumstances, it is apparent that the order made by the Appellate Authority was not only illegal but was also improper and the Revisional SCA/6119/2001 7/7 JUDGMENT Authority rightly exercised powers under Section 155 of the Act. 7. In the result, the petition does not merit acceptance and is accordingly rejected. Rule discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. (D.A.MEHTA, J.) ashish//