IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 14.07.2010 COCP No.1305 of 2010 Harvinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus G.Vijyalingam, Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Rakesh Bhatia, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. The grievance of the petitioner is that the order passed by this Court directing the respondent to decide his representation has not been implemented and, therefore, the respondent is in contempt. It is alleged by the petitioner that he entered into an agreement to sell dated 14.8.2007 to purchase plot No.C-243 measuring 500 square yards at Kansal, District Ropar for a consideration of Rs.5,50,000/-. The petitioner alleges that various documents such as general power of attorney, affidavit and Will were executed by one Rajbir Singh Uppal-owner of the said plot. It is further alleged that the said Rajbir Singh Uppal lodged a false report regarding loss of documents and transferred the plot to Mrs. Kushal Takhar. The said report was found to be incorrect in an enquiry conducted by the police authorities on an order passed in Criminal Misc. No.16296-M of 2009 and proceedings under Section 182 IPC have been initiated against Rajbir Singh Uppal. Such proceedings are pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh. COCP No.1305 of 2010 The petitioner claims that in terms of the agreement, the respondent-Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab is bound to transfer the share of Rajbir Singh Uppal in favour of the petitioner. It was for the said effect, a representation was submitted, which was directed to be decided by this Court. Though, prima facie, the dispute raised by the petitioner pertains to contractual obligation for which the appropriate remedy would be before the Civil Court, but the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, is duty bound to transfer the share of Rajbir Singh Uppal in favour of the petitioner and, thus, failure to decide the representation is an act of contempt. The contention raised by the petitioner is not correct. The powers, which can be exercised by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies are contained in Chapter VII of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). Section 48 of the Act, empowers the Registrar to cause audit of the accounts of the Cooperative Society. Section 49 of the Act, empowers the Registrar to have access to all books, accounts, papers, vouchers, securities, stock and other property of the society and to examine serious irregularities during inspection. In terms of Section 50 of the Act, the Registrar can order an inquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of a cooperative society. None of the said provisions are applicable to the facts of the present case. It is Section 55 of the Act, which deals with the disputes, which may be referred to arbitration. The disputes touching the constitution, management or the business of a cooperative society amongst members, past members and persons claiming through members, past members and deceased members are referable to Registrar for decision. 2 COCP No.1305 of 2010 In view of the said fact, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies has no administrative jurisdiction in relation to the disputes between the members or arising out of agreement executed by the member to sell his share in relation to any immoveable property. The only power, which is with the Registrar, is for settlement of disputes in terms of Section 55 of the Act, for which the petitioner may have to invoke the quasi judicial jurisdiction of the Registrar. There is no power with the Registrar under the Act to decide the question of membership administratively. In view of the above, I do not find that any case is made out for initiation of contempt proceedings in the present case. However, the petitioner is at liberty to invoke his remedy in accordance with law. The observations made above are only for the purpose of deciding the contempt petition. It shall be open to the petitioner to seek his remedy from the competent Court or Authority and such Court/Authority shall decide all questions including that of jurisdiction, uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove. With the said observations, the present contempt petition is disposed of. 14.07.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 3