CWP No. 505 of 2004 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … CWP No. 505 of 2004 Date of decision: March 8, 2010 Avtar Singh and others ..Petitioners. Versus Additional Secretary Cooperation(Appeals),Punjab and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rajan Gupta Present: Mr.M.S.Kang, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr. Ashwani Prashar, Advocate for respondent no.5 ... Rajan Gupta,J.(Oral) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein a prayer has been made for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing impugned orders Annexures P-2 to P-6. The only controversy is regarding payment of counsel fee to the tune of Rs. 55150/- by the petitioners during their tenure as Committee Members for the period 1993 to 1998. While the case of the petitioners is that decision to engage a counsel had been taken by the Committee by passing a resolution which was duly entered in the record of the society,the CWP No. 505 of 2004 2 society has rebutted this on the ground that approval was never granted by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies beyond an expenditure of Rs. 10000/-. Admittedly, the petitioners were held not liable to pay the amount by the Arbitrator vide award dated 9.6.2000 (Annexure P-1/T). The society however preferred an appeal before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies wherein he vide order dated 8.1.2001 (Annexure P-2/T) directed the appointment of an Inquiry Officer under Section 54 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. The inquiry was thereafter conducted by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kapurthala and on the basis of the inquiry report, notice was issued to the petitioners to pay the amount in question. It is not disputed that before the issuance of notice, no specific order was passed and no opportunity was given to the parties to advance arguments on the basis of inquiry conducted by the Deputy Registrar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thus submitted that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and petitioners deserve an opportunity of hearing by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies in order to enable them to advance their arguments regarding the inquiry report. The prayer for remand of the case is not opposed by the counsel appearing on behalf of the society. It appears that after order dated 8.1.2001(Annexure P-2) was passed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, an inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer appointed by the Joint Registrar, i.e., Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kapurthala. However, the said inquiry report was never submitted before the Joint Registrar thereafter in order to enable the parties to advance arguments on the basis of the inquiry CWP No. 505 of 2004 3 report. The Assistant Registrar acting on the basis of the inquiry report straightway issued the recovery notice to the petitioners. This particular issue, it appears escaped the notice of the revisional authority as well while deciding the revision preferred by the petitioners. Thus no finding was returned on this issue. For this reason,I am of the considered view that recovery notice (Annexure P-5) as well as order passed by the reversional authority (Annexure P-6) deserve to be set aside. Under the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and notice Annexure P-5 and order Annexure P-6 are set aside. The matter is remanded back to Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jalandhar for decision afresh after hearing the parties. The parties through their counsel are directed to remain present before the said authority on 14.4.2010. The matter may be taken up by the said authority on 14.4.2010 for issuance of notice to the parties and decision afresh after hearing them. March 8,2010 (RAJAN GUPTA) nk JUDGE