CWP No. 11470 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CWP No. 11470 of 2011 Date of decision: 6.7.2011 Gurdev Singh ......Petitioner Versus The Secretary, Cooperative Department, U.T.Chandigarh .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.C.Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the order dated 25.5.2004 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies and the order dated 25.4.2011 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Secretary Cooperative in appeal. Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was a member of respondent No.3-society and owned 50 bighas of land in village Mahiwala and 32 bighas of land in village Hassanpur. The petitioner was running an industry in Industrial Plot No.279, Industrial Area, CWP No. 11470 of 2011 2 Phase I, Chandigarh. The petitioner was also running a transport business and owned two trucks. The total income of the petitioner was about ` 3,00,000/- in the year 1988. The petitioner lent ` 1,00,000/- out of his income in the year 1988 to the society- respondent No.3 as it was in financial crises. However, the society had failed to repay the loan amount to the petitioner. The society owed ` 50,000/- to the petitioner under an agreement executed on 1.11.1988 and although it had agreed to re-pay the amount with interest of ` 16,000/- on or before 30.5.1990 in 18 monthly instalments but had failed to do so. The society also owed another sum of ` 50,000/- to the petitioner along with ` 15,000/- towards interest and ` 1,000/- towards document charges. The same were to be paid by the society to the petitioner in 18 monthly instalments on or before 30.5.1990 but it had failed to do so. The petitioner had paid loan amount of ` 40,000/- to Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. from 1988 to 1990. The details qua the said payment have been given in para 8 of the petition. The society had not paid any amount relating to the petitioner to Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. as alleged. Hence, the impunged orders were liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had advanced ` 1,00,000/- by way of loan to the society but the society, in turn, had failed to repay the same to the petitioner. The petitioner himself had paid instalments to Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. qua the loan amount advanced to the petitioner towards truck No.CHW 6395. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of CWP No. 11470 of 2011 3 the opinion that the instant petition is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. The question that requires consideration is that as to whether the petitioner has paid the instalments to Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. or respondent No.3 had paid the instalments on behalf of the petitioner. A perusal of order dated 25.5.2004 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies reveals that the receipts produced by the petitioner and by the society had duly been considered. It was found that the receipts submitted by the society were provisional receipts and at the bottom of the said receipts, it had been mentioned that "this receipt is valid for 10 days and will be followed by an official receipt, which, if not received, should be asked for after 10 days." The receipts produced by the petitioner were the receipts issued later on after provisional receipts. The truck No.CHW-6395 was duly written on the said receipts. In these circumstances, the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the instalments had been paid by the petitioner to the Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd., is without any basis. Apparently, the instalments were paid by the society and at that time provisional receipts were issued to the soceity and later on the receipts were issued by the Head Office in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the provisional receipts. The next question that arises for consideration is as to whether the society had taken loan of ` 50,000/- or ` 1,00,000/-. The Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies has observed in the impunged order dated 25.5.2004 (Annexure P-5) that there CWP No. 11470 of 2011 4 was only one agreement of Delhi plot and a copy of the mortgage deed of Ludhiana plot executed between the parties on 1.11.1988 on the file. In the agreement there was a mention of ` 50,000/- borrowed by the society from the petitioner and in the mortgage deed also there was a mention of ` 50,000/-, which had been borrowed by the society from the petitioner. However, in the mortgage deed, plot No.9 situated at Ludhiana had been mentioned, whereas, in the agreement there was reference to a Delhi plot. Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. had advanced a sum of ` 50,000/- to the petitioner which had been further paid by him to the society. A perusal of Annexure P-2, mortgage deed, reveals that an amount of ` 50,000/- was paid by the petitioner to the soecity vide bank draft No.B-232202/ 2176/ 88 dated 2.11.1988. The manager of the society had also signed the receipt at the end of mortgage deed that a sum of ` 50,000/- has been received as mortgage money from the petitioner by the society. However, in the agreement Annexure P-1, the mode of payment has not been depicted. There is no receipt qua the payment of another sum of ` 50,000/- by the petitioner to the society apart from the receipt in the mortgage deed. Both the documents annexure P-1 agreement and Annexure P-2 mortgage deed were executed on 1.11.1988. In case the petitioner had advanced a sum of ` 1,00,000/- to the society, receipt should have also been executed by the society qua receipt of ` 1,00,000/- from the petitioner. Although in the agreement Annexure P-1 as well as in the mortgage deed Annexure P-2, it has been mentioned that the petitioner had agreed to advance a sum of ` 50,000/- along with interest and other charges CWP No. 11470 of 2011 5 to the society but a perusal of Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-2 leads to the inference that in fact, the petitioner had advanced only ` 50,000/- to the society towards loan, which were required by the society to clear debts of the Chandigarh State Cooperative Bank, Chandigarh. There is nothing on record to suggest that the society required a sum of ` 1,00,000/- to clear the debt of the Chandigarh State Cooperative Bank, Chandigarh. Thus, from the documentary evidence on record, it transpired that only a loan of ` 50,000/- had been advanced by the petitioner to the society and the same bad been repaid by the society to Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. on behalf of the petitioner. The Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies has observed in the impunged order that the resolution of the society was also to the effect that ` 66,000/- including the interest and document charges were to be borrowed from the petitioner. Keeping in view the above facts, no ground for interference by this Court is called for. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 06, 2011 anita