IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 15162 of 2009 Date of Decision: 23.11.2011 Sadhu Ram ........Petitioner vs. State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. S. SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr. Amit Singla, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. R.S. Sihag, Advocate for respondent No. 4 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 18.10.2006 passed by Joint Secretary to Govt., Haryana Cooperation Department, Chandigarh whereby order dated 30.5.2005 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Society, Hisar was set aside. The petitioner availed a loan of Rs. 2,50,000/- from respondent No. 4 i.e. Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Hisar in the year 1993. Since the petitioner defaulted in making payments, respondent No. 4 raised a dispute before Assistant Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Hisar in terms of Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984. The Assistant Registrar passed an Award on 3.11.2004. It was ordered to grant benefit of one time settlement scheme if petitioner pays the amount of Rs. 3,15,311/-. The appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Deputy Registrar on 30.5.2005. C.W.P. No. 15162 of 2009 2 However, in revision, orders passed were set aside by observing as under:- “I have heard arguments of both the counsels of the parties and perused the relevant record placed before me. The amount of loan advanced by the bank is not disputed. The only question which is in dispute is whether the loanee was entitled for the benefit of the OTS Scheme or not. Learned counsel for the respondent was not able to show the relevant instruction vide which it may be proved that the OTS Scheme was applicable at that time. Perusal of the record reveals that the respondent No. 3 had not repaid the outstanding dues alongwith interest to the bank as per the execution deed executed between the parties. Therefore, I set aside both the orders passed by the courts below and accept the revision petition of the petitioner. The judgment was reserved on 20.09.2006 and announced on 18.10.2006 in the open court.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced one time settlement scheme circulated by National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development (for short the NABARD) on 31.5.2003. It is contended that such guidelines have been issued by the NABARD to the agricultural and Cooperative Societies. Therefore, the said guidelines are binding on respondent No. 4. On the other hand, in written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, reference is made to mortgage deed executed in the year 1993 whereby petitioner has secured the loan availed by him. It is also asserted that the one time settlement scheme on which petitioner has placed reliance was not adopted by the said respondent. In the one time settlement scheme produced by learned C.W.P. No. 15162 of 2009 3 counsel for the petitioner, it has been provided that these guidelines will be operative after they are approved by the respective Registrar of Cooperative Societies of States as well as the Board of Directors of the concerned Banks. Nothing has been brought on record to show that Registrar of Cooperative Societies has approved such guidelines. It is a categorical stand of the Bank i.e. respondent No. 4 that these guidelines have not been adopted by them. It may be noticed that learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any provision from the National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development Act, 1981, that the guidelines issued by the NABARD are binding on the Cooperative Banks. Therefore, the reliance on said one time settlement scheme circulated by NABARD can not be said to be binding on the respondents. Thus, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed in revision petition. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. The Assistant Registrar shall re-determine the amount due and payable by the petitioner in accordance with law. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE 23.11.2011 reena