CWP No.11759 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.11759 of 2010 Decided on :21-07-2010 The Kiratpur Sahib Truck Operators Cooperative Transport Society Ltd., Kiratpur Sahib, District Ropar ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shivani Sharma and Mr. Harit Sharma, Advocates for the petitioner Mr. Surinder Kapoor, Addl. A.G, Punjab Mr. R.K.Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.8. MAHESH GROVER, J This is a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India filed by Kiratpur Sahib Truck Operators Cooperative Transport Society Ltd., Kiratpur Sahib having 754 members and over 300 trucks. At the time of registration, the area of operation of the society encompassed about 50 villages. With the carving out of District Mohali, the area of operation of the petitioner society shrunk considerably with 10 villages having been taken out from the purview of its operation. The jurisdiction of these 10 villages vested with Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Ropar whereas area of operation which came to the share of the petitioner was subject to the jurisdiction of Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Anandpur Sahib. Respondent no.8 i.e Beli Truck Operators Cooperative CWP No.11759 of 2010 2 Transport Society Ltd., is another registered society whose area of operation spreads over 10 villages taken out from the purview of the petitioner's society. The grievance of the petitioner stems from the action of the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies- respondents no. 4 and 6 who sealed the sub-office of the petitioner-society situated at village Bharatgarh. The ostensible reason for doing so is that the petitioner did not have a mandate to operate in this village which came within the purview of operation of respondent no.8. Annexure P-5 is the only existing document which notices the dispute between the two societies and the Assistant Registrar observes in this order as follows:- “From the above, it is clear that the society mentioned in the subject is habitual to do unlawful things. Therefore, it is requested that Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Anandpur Sahib may kindly be directed to take action against this society under Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 and 1963 Rules and he be also directed to take action to get the illegally opened office closed at village Bharatgarh by the society mentioned in the subject. Action may be taken to get the membership of the villages falling in Ropar Sub Division cancelled and new enrollment of the members may be got stopped.” Pursuant to this, sub office of the petitioner-society was sealed and the name painted as identification of the office on the front was also erased. The vernacular copy of this order has also been placed on record which bears a hand-written note suggesting that an order to erase the name has also been given by Assistant Registrar. The petitioner contends that CWP No.11759 of 2010 3 neither any notice was issued to him nor was he heard before such an action was undertaken by respondent no.7 purportedly acting under the orders of respondent no.4. Notice of motion was issued to the respondents who have since put in appearance. Respondent no.4 has filed a short affidavit in which he has stated that he had written a letter to the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies on 29.6.2010 apprising him of the illegal functioning of the petitioner society by opening sub-office at village Bharatgarh in the area of respondent no.8 which falls within the official jurisdiction of cooperative society, Ropar for taking immediate action as well as Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Anandpur Sahib as there is dispute among two cooperative societies falling under the jurisdiction of Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Anandpur Sahib and Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ropar. Beyond a factual narration of the correspondence inter se between respondent no.4 and Deputy Registrar and Halqa Inspector and Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Anandpur Sahib there is no mention or justification of the action taken by the said respondent no.4. Respondent no.8 has filed a separate written statement in which he has stated that an order has been passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ropar restraining the petitioner from opening an office but despite this and in complete violation thereof petitioner opened office on 26.6.2010. He thus contended that petitioner has violated orders of Civil Court and does not deserve any compassion or indulgence from this Court. Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ropar – respondent CWP No.11759 of 2010 4 no.4 as also Inspector Cooperative Societies – respondent no.7 are both present in Court. The Court had the benefit of inquiring of them as to whether any order has been passed directing the sub-office of the petitioner situated at village Bharatgarh to be sealed or whether any proceedings had been undertaken by him (respondent no.4) or any other competent authority in this regard. The candid reply of the respondent no.4 was that no such order or proceedings had been undertaken and that merely because he apprehended that a law and order situation may arise, he ordered Inspector, Cooperative Societies to seal the office. He has not denied that it was under his orders that sub-office of the petitioner at Bharatgarh had been sealed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that there is no limitation for two cooperative societies to operate in a single area, for which he placed reliance on case titled as Banta Singh and Sh. Nazir Singh versus The State of Punjab and others 1974 PLJ 349 and also referred to the averments made in para 8 of the writ petition to substantiate this plea. However, the Court is not inclined to adjudicate upon this aspect of the matter as the dispute inter se between the cooperative societies is to be determined by the competent authority in the first instance. In so far as the action of the respondents no.4 and 7 is concerned by which they sealed the sub-office of the petitioner it can at best be said that the attitude and the consequent action of the said respondents is an example of exhibitionism of a dictatorial attitude. Such an action restoted to sans any authority of law is draconian and in utter disregard to the established procedures of law. There is absolutely no justification for CWP No.11759 of 2010 5 visiting the petitioner with such consequences and the Court is of the opinion that respondent no.4 and 7 have committed gross abuse of their powers. The action is completely injusticiable and the petition is therefore allowed and the respondents are directed to open the sub-office of the petitioner forthwith today itself by 6:00 P.M. Respondent nos. 4 and 7 shall jointly pay a sum of Rs. 1 lac, which amount shall be paid as compensation to the petitioner for their arbitrariness and un-ashamed display of brute authority, which they were even not vested with. The amount of Rs. 1 lac shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of 10 days from today. This order and gross displeasure of the Court be also brought on the service book of the said respondents to be considered against them whenever the situation arises. The amount shall be recovered from the personal pay of respondent nos. 4 and 7. July 21, 2010 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge