Civil Writ Petition No. 8108 of 1989 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 8108 of 1989 Date of decision : 27.01.2010 Gurdial Singh ....Petitioner V/s The State of Punjab and others ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. G.S. Dhariwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. O.P. Dabla, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) This is a petition seeking writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing orders Annexures P-3, P-4 & P-6 dated 28.05.1985, 27.01.1986 & 01.03.1989 passed by respondents No. 3, 2 and 1 respectively. Brief factual background of the case is that petitioner become member of Lakhnour Cooperative Agricultural Service Society in the year 1966 after paying a membership fees of Rs. 70/- and was issued a pass-book by the Society in respect thereof. The petitioner claims that on 29.05.1975, he deposited a sum of Rs. 2000/- with the Lakhnour Society and deposit was entered in the pass-book. The entry showing deposit of money was signed by Sukha Singh then Secretary of the Society in verification of deposit. Similarly another amount of Rs. 8798.07 paise was deposited by the petitioner on 28.06.1975 with the above said Society and the same was also entered in his pass-book by Sukha Singh (then Secretary) and signed in Civil Writ Petition No. 8108 of 1989 2 verification thereof. The petitioner asserts that though this entry was also reflected in the pass-book but was not shown in the cash ledger of the Society. In the year 1976, the Lakhnour Society was liquidated and its assests and liabilities were amalgamated in Jhingran Society (respondent No. 4 herein). The petitioner thereafter, claimed refund of the amount deposited by him on the basis of pass-book (Annexure P-1/A). The matter was referred to Arbitrator, who after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that amount in question was never received by the Society, as the same was not reflected in the record of the Society. The Arbitrator further observed that entry of Rs. 8798.07 in the pass-book of Gurdial Singh was wrong and baseless. As regards the entry of Rs. 2000/-, he observed that the same may have been received by Sukha Singh then Secretary in his personal capacity. Aggrieved by the order of Arbitrator passed on 28.05.2005 (Annexure P3/A), the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Ropar. However, the appeal was dismissed by order dated 27.01.1986 (Annexure P-4/A). The petitioner preferred the revision petition against the said orders which was also dismissed by Commissioner (Appeals) Jalandhar vide his order dated 01.03.1989 (Annexure P-6). The Commissioner (Appeals) Jalandhar Division came to the conclusion that petitioner had failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the appellate orders and thus revision petition deserved to be dismissed. He also came to the conclusion that case of the society was corroborated from the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant has argued that findings arrived at by the authorities below are absolutely erroneous. According to him, the money deposited by the petitioner was reflected in the Civil Writ Petition No. 8108 of 1989 3 pass-book and findings should have been arrived at on that basis. He further submits that pass-book was counter signed by Sukha Singh therefore, there is no room of doubt that the amount was deposited by the petitioner. Mr. Dabla appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 3 has submitted that the petitioner never impleaded Sukha Singh (then Secretary) as a party to the proceedings. He further submits that the orders have been correctly passed by the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Society. According to him the amount claimed by the petitioner was not reflected in the records of the Society. Reply has also been filed on behalf of The Jhingran Kalan Cooperative Agricultural Service Society (respondent No. 4) wherein all the contentions of the petitioner have been rebutted. It has been stated therein that amount of Rs. 2,000/- was awarded by the Arbitrator and same was recoverable from Sukha Singh (then Secretary) who had by then expired. According to the reply, claim of Rs. 8798.07 paisa was also rightly declined as the same was not reflected in the records of the Society. I have heard counsel for the parties. Admittedly, Sukha Singh then Secretary was not impleaded as respondent by the petitioner during the proceedings. Only amount of Rs. 2,000/- was granted to the petitioner on the ground that the same was received by Sukha Singh. The same was thus, recoverable from Sukha Singh but he was not impleaded as a party. Even before this court the said Sukha Singh or his LR's are not arrayed as respondents. As regards amount of Rs. 8798.07 paisa, I am of the considered view that the question involved has been considered by Arbitrator and thereafter, by appellate as well as revisional authority. The question of deposit of money by the petitioner Civil Writ Petition No. 8108 of 1989 4 with respondent No. 4 (Society) has been dealt with by the said authorities and findings have been arrived at on the basis of record. Therefore, no interference is called for in the orders passed. The assertion that the amount in question was paid is purely factual in nature which cannot be adjudicated upon in the writ jurisdiction of this court. No legal infirmity with the impugned order has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner. I am thus, of the considered view that it is not a fit case for interference in the writ jurisdiction of this court. The petition is devoid of merit and is thus dismissed. January 27, 2010 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE