CWP No. 7188 of 2009 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … CWP No. 7188 of 2009 Date of decision: January 25,2011 Sanjeev Kumar ..Petitioner. Versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents CWP No. 8384 of 2009 Sher Singh ..Petitioner. Versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. M.K.Sood, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Narender Singh, DAG, Haryana for respondent No. 1 to 3 Mr. Ramesh Goyat, Advocate for respondent No.4. ... M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J.(Oral) As identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of the above mentioned writ petitions, against the same impugned orders, filed by President and Cashier of the petitioner-Society vide this common judgment, in order to avoid the repetition. However, the factual matrix, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant writ petitions, has been extracted from the (1) CWP No. 7188 of 2009 for ready reference. 2. The contour of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the instant writ petitions and emanating from the record is that CWP No. 7188 of 2009 2 Zimindara Cooperative Transport Society Ltd., (for brevity,”Petitioner-society”) took the loan of ` 5,06,000/- from The Faridabad Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. (respondent No.4) (for short, “respondent-Bank”) in the year 1994 to purchase its bus. Petitioner Sanjeev Kumar was the President of the Society. Consequently, the petitioner-Society purchased the bus bearing No. HR-38-6596 for ` 6 lacs after contributing ` 94,000/- as margin money. It was stated to have paid instalments regularly up to 1998. Thereafter, it failed to repay the loan in time. 3. The petitioner-Society claimed that respondent-Bank illegally took the bus into its custody in the year 1999, without issuing any notice and it was put to sale in the year 2002. Thereafter, respondent-Bank filed a suit for recovery before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies for the recovery of loan of `11,04,551/- ( ` 5,65,726/- principal amount and ` 5,38,825/- interest) up to 30.9.2003. The petitioner-Society appeared and contested the suit. The Arbitrator decreed the suit of the respondent-Bank against the petitioner vide judgment/award dated 31.5.2005(Annexure P-1). 4. Aggrieved by the impugned order (Annexure P-1), the appeal (Annexure P-2) filed by the petitioner-Society and its office bearers, was dismissed as well by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies by virtue of impugned order dated 24.1.2008 (Annexure P-3). The revision petition filed by the petitioner-Society was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Haryana, Cooperative Department, by mens of order dated 9.7.2008 (Annexure P-4). 5. The President and Secretary of petitioner-Society, still did not feel satisfied and filed the instant writ petitions challenging the impugned orders (Annexures P-1, P-3 and P-4) invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. That is how I am seized of the matter. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone CWP No. 7188 of 2009 3 through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition. 7. As is evident from the record that petitioner-Society took a loan in question from the respondent-Bank for purchase of bus and agreed to pay the amount along with interest as per loan agreement dated 30.6.1994 (Annexure R- 4/1(Colly). Thereafter, respondent-Bank issued registered notices to its member (Annexure R-4/2 and R-4/3). Still loan was not paid by the petitioner-Society along with interest. It necessitated the bank to file a recovery suit against it. It was decreed by the Arbitrator by means of impugned order Annexure P-1, the same was upheld by the Appellate Authority vide order (Annexure P-3) and revisional authority by way of order (Annexure P-4). 8. The solitary argument of learned counsel for the petitioner-Society that since no notice was issued to the society by the respondent-Bank before its bus was put to sale, so impugned orders are illegal, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that notice dated 16.10.1998 (Annexure R4/2) was issued to the petitioner-Society requiring it to deposit the amount up to 30.10.1998 failing which its bus shall be sold. But the petitioner -society refused to accept the notice. Not only that notice was also published in the newspaper. Therefore, it cannot possibly be saith that no notice was issued to the petitioner-Society before the bus was put for auction by means of auction notice/auction proceedings (Annexure R-4/4). 9. The next argument of learned counsel that impugned orders are non- speaking and against the statutory provisions is again not tenable. The Arbitrator/Deputy Registrar and Appellate Authority/Registrar, Cooperative Societies have duly considered the entire matter in right perspective and passed the speaking orders (Annexure P-1 and P-3) in this relevant connection. 10. There is another aspect of the matter which can be viewed from a CWP No. 7188 of 2009 4 different angle. The Arbitrator/Deputy Registrar rightly came to the conclusion that petitioner-Society and its office bearers/member are liable to pay the disputed amount vide Award (Annexure P-1). The matter was again re-examined by the Appellate Authority by virtue of impugned order (Annexure P-3). The operative part of which is s under:- “ I have gone through the record of the case and arguments made by the both parties. It is admitted fact that the appellant society had taken loan of ` 5,06,000/- for purchase of bus from the respondent bank which was to be repaid in 57 installments along with 17 % interest thereon as per the agreement executed between the appellant society and the respondent bank. 2-1/2 % more interest was charged in case of default. The respondent bank had made efforts for recovery of outstanding loan from the respondent but the appellant society has not repaid the loan amount and as a result the appellant society become overdue of ` 11,04,551/- up to 30.9.2003 (` 5,65,726/- + ` 5,38,825/- interest, total `. 11,04,551/-). The DRCS has specifically mentioned in his order that the respondent No.2 (now appellant No.2) did not come present during the after giving notice to him. And thereafter, notice was got published in News paper but the appellants did not come to defend himself. The appellant No.3 refuse to receive the notice issued to him. Hence it is evident from the record that the appellants were not willing to associate the inquiry conducted by DRCS because as they know that they were in default. The respondent bank had made efforts to recover the loan amount but the appellant society did not repay the loan. The appellant society wrongly taken plat ah the appellants had no knowledge for taking the bus in custody by the bank, whereas the DRCS has given adequate opportunity to the appellants to associate the enquiry proceedings regarding the dispute of loan amount. The respondent bank had sold the bus as per provisions of the Act and no provision of the Act has been violated while selling the bus. As the appellant failed to repaying the loan amount to the bank, hence the DRCS has rightly held the appellants responsible by passing the order dated 31.5.2005. I find no illegality or infirmity in the order dated 31.5.2005 passed by the DRCS. Therefore, the present appeal CWP No. 7188 of 2009 5 is dismissed and the order dated 31.5.2005 is upheld.” 11. Meaning thereby, the authorities below have duly considered all the points now sought to be raised on behalf of the petitioner-Society, rightly appreciated and recorded the valid reasons in this relevant context in the impugned orders. Such orders containing valid reasons cannot legally be set aside in exercise of extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this court, unless the same are perverse and without jurisdiction. As no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner-Society, therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 12. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the parties. 13. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. January 25,2011 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) nk JUDGE Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No