Civil Writ Petition No. 17493 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 17493 of 2007 Date of Decision: 21.9.2010 Bhagwan Dass (Deceased) through his legal heirs …Petitioner Versus Additional Registrar (G), Co-operative Societies, Punjab and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. SD. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anupam Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Attariwala, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.5. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the order dated 6.12.2006 (Annexure P6), passed by respondent No.1- Additional Registrar (G), Co-operative Societies, Punjab, be set aside whereby the revision petition, preferred by petitioner Bhagwan Dass was dismissed and the liberty was granted to him to initiate the arbitration proceedings before the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rajpura. The following observations have been made in the order (Annexure P6):- Civil Writ Petition No. 17493 of 2007 2 “...The Society failed to produce the relevant record as a consequence of which the Arbitrator has to close the proceedings. The petitioner has suffered unnecessarily for want of action by the staff of the Society who have failed to produce the relevant record. The attitude of the staff relating to recovery is also apparent from the fact that the arbitration proceedings which were closed in 1996 with the direction for re-opening after the tracing of the record were not re-opened as the staff failed to produce the relevant record. The petitioner has been unnecessarily burdened with interest for a long period...” Having made the abovesaid observations, there was no justification for the Revisional Authority not to relieve the petitioner from the burden of paying interest on the loan amount w.e.f. 21.6.1996. This Court, on 16.9.2010, had passed the following order:- “...One cannot imagine how miserable one can be by borrowing a loan from a public institution. This case is one such glaring example. Petitioner, in the year 1988, for having roof on his head, took a loan of Rs.1.00 lac from respondent No.4 - The Rajpura Janta Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Rajpura (hereinafter referred to as the 'Housing Society'). It is stated that this Housing Society was engaged in sanction and Civil Writ Petition No. 17493 of 2007 3 disbursement of the loan to be provided by Housefed. The loan of Rs.1.00 lac availed by the petitioner, was to be re-paid in 80 equated instalments, within a period of 20 years. Petitioner is stated to have paid an amount of Rs.44,239/- when the matter was referred to the Arbitrator. Arbitrator vide Annexure P-2 dated 18.1.1996 informed that principal amount due was Rs.97,873/-, interest Rs.29,284/- and expense of Rs.12,715/- totalling Rs.1,39,872/- were outstanding against the petitioner. The Arbitrator made petitioner to deposit Rs.50,000/-. The amount disclosed by the Housing Society was disputed by the petitioner simply on the assumption as to how the principal outstanding will be Rs.97,873/- when he had paid Rs.94,239/-. Be that as it may, the Arbitrator had shown his helplessness as the society was not coming forward with the record and he came to conclusion that because of the lack of assistance on the part of the Society, it is impossible to give award in the matter and filed the proceedings, there was, thus, no option with the petitioner except to approach this Court by way of present writ petition. Petitioner to show his bona fide at the bidding of Arbitrator had deposited Rs.50,000/-. It was Society which was not coming forward to disclose the Civil Writ Petition No. 17493 of 2007 4 amount outstanding. If that is so, how can petitioner be saddled with interest as he was willing and ready to pay the outstanding amount. Petitioner went into rigmarole of appeal and revision. Lastly, he approached this Court. To test the bona fide of the petitioner, this Court ordered that the petitioner should deposit Rs.1.00 lacs. The petitioner complied with the order. He had paid Rs.1,94,239/-. It is stated that as on 9.7.2009, total amount outstanding against the petitioner was Rs.4,38,286/-, if simple interest is applied. Considering the plight of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that serious questions can be raised regarding the functioning of the public Cooperative Institution. What was the objective for which Housefed was created? Is it to harass the petitioner or redress his grievance? This Court shall refrain to comment adversely upon the organization which has provided the loan as it may depict the institution badly and shake the confidence of others. Therefore, prima-facie, this Court is of the view that considering the peculiar facts of this case, the organization should come forward to settle the dispute amicably and a proposal to this effect be submitted in this Court on 21.9.2010. Civil Writ Petition No. 17493 of 2007 5 List on 21.9.2010. Short date is given as the petitioner is in corridors of Courts since 1996, pertaining to a transaction of year 1988...” Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No.5, has submitted that the outstanding loan amount has been paid by respondent No.4-Rajpura Janta Co-operative House Building Society Limited, Rajpura (hereinafter referred to as “the Society”) to respondent No.5-Punjab State Federation of Co-operative House Building Societies Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Housefed”), therefore, it cannot redress the grievance of the petitioner. It is not disputed that the petitioner had obtained a loan from the Housefed and respondent No.4-Society, being a facilitator, stood as a guarantor to the loan. A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was advanced to the petitioner for constructing the house. As per the award dated 21.6.1996 (Annexure P2), the following amount was outstanding against the petitioner:- “Principal : Rs. 97,873/- Interest : Rs. 29,284/- Expenses : Rs. 12,715/- Total Rs.1,39,872/- The petitioner, at that time, had expressed his willingness to pay the entire amount. The Arbitrator had expressed his helplessness and stated that he was not in a position to adjudicate upon the dispute as the Society was not rendering accounts to determine the amounts payable by the petitioner. The following observations, made by Civil Writ Petition No. 17493 of 2007 6 respondent No.3-Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Patiala, while acting as an Arbitrator on 21.6.1996, are necessary to be noticed:- “...From this office for hearing of this case lot of dates were given but nothing from this society could produce any record or document which could prove the claim. Sh. Gurcharan Singh s/o Sh. Amar Singh, Field Worker stated on 21.6.1996 that he is working as Secretary from 1.12.1995 in Rajpura Janta Co- operative House Building Society Ltd., Rajpura and he also stated that he did not get the loan account charge from Ex-Secretary Lalit Kumar and he informed in writing and orally because his account was untraceable so he cannot tell how much amount is pending from a loanee. He also stated that loanee deposited Rs.50,000/- on 12.4.1996 in the account of the society and he also stated that he cannot be sure to tell that what is the actual amount pending and how much the interest on it. A statement was put in the file....” Thereafter, the Arbitrator had consigned the file to the records by observing as under:- “...According to above mentioned till the time first party will not tell the claim in real sense and would not present the relevant account, it is impossible to go ahead in the case. So this case is filed. That the first party will have the right to present the record Civil Writ Petition No. 17493 of 2007 7 and complete the record and can present the total amount of the arbitration case. The order is pronounced in the presence of both the parties and the case file should be given to Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rajpura, for next action...” Thus, it is apparent that on 21.6.1996, the petitioner was ready and willing to pay the entire amount. The Society was withholding the record. This fact has also been observed by respondent No.3 by saying that the petitioner has unnecessarily been harassed. The relevant portion of the order of the Revisional Authority has already been reproduced above. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of by upholding the finding of the Revisional Authority that the petitioner can initiate the arbitration proceedings before the Assistant Registrar,Co- operative Societies, Rajpura. However, since the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to pay the entire loan amount on 21.6.1996, he shall not be liable to pay the interest thereon to be determined by the Arbitrator w.e.f. 21.6.1996. Once the petitioner satisfies the award (Annexure P2) made by respondent No.3, the title deed shall be released to him. No costs. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge September 21, 2010 “DK”