JUDGMENT- R.K. BATTA, J.:---The petitioner society had granted a loan of an amount of Rs. 25,000/- to respondent No. 1, who is member of the said society. Respondents Nos. 2 to 7 who are also the members of the said society, stood as sureties for the due repayment of the said loan. Respondent No. 1 failed to pay the loan amount and the matter was referred to Registrar's Nominee. The Nominee, by his judgment dated 18-1-1984 passed an order against respondents Nos. 1 to 7 for the repayment of Rs. 41,792.61 paise as on 18-1-1984, together with interest at the rate of 20% per annum from 1-10-1983, till final payment of the amount, besides costs of Rs. 170/-. The petitioner thereafter had to seek execution and in this process, salaries of respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 7 were sought to be attached. The orders for attachment of salary of the said respondents were passed by respondent No. 8. Respondent No. 4, by letter dated 10-7-1990, addressed to respondent No. 8 submitted that 28 monthly instalments from his salary had already been deducted and in view of section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, salary beyond a period of 24 months, could not be attached. The petitioner objected to this letter and contended that the provisions of section 60 of Code of Civil Procedure could not be applied. Similarly, respondent No. 7 also addressed letter dated 13-5-1990, requesting that no deduction should be made after 24 monthly instalments. It appears that in case of respondent No. 3 even in spite of the order of attachment, his salary was not attached. In view of the said letters of respondents Nos. 4 and 7, no further attachment of the salary was effected. The petitioner claims that loans have been granted to large number of its members and if the salary beyond 24 monthly instalments is not attached, it would cause immense loss to the petitioner.

2.The challenge in this petition is to the vires of Rule 104(6) of the Co-operative Societies Rules, 1962 (hereinafter called as "the said Rules") applicable to the State of Goa on the ground that the said Rule imposes restrictions on the amount to be recovered and to that extent it is ultra vires the registrar's power to recover the loans under Sec. 156 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter called as "the said Act") as applied to the State of Goa. It is further submitted by the petitioner that the rule making authority has sought to restrict powers to execute the Award and the said Rule 104(6) is without authority of law and, as such, null and void. The petitioner, therefore, seeks declaration that Rule 104(6) of the said Rules to the extent that it makes recovery subject to the provision of section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is ultra vires the section 156 of the Act. Alternatively, the petitioner's case is that the said rules came into force on 26-1-1963 and section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as it stood then, could be applied and the subsequent amendment to section 60 could not be pressed into service, so as to restrict the recovery of the salary beyond 24 instalments.

3.Learned Advocate Shri R.G. Ramani, submitted before us that a total sum of Rs. 69,570.31 paise could only be recovered and the balance due from the respondents Nos. 1 to 7, as on 31-12-1998, is to the tune of Rs. 97,477.71 paise. His main contentions are that section 60 of Code of Civil Procedure militates against the powers of the Registrar to effect recovery of loans under section 156 of the said Act beyond 24 months and, as such, Rule 104(6) of the said Rules which restricts the said power of the Registrar under the said Act, is not only null and void, but it is beyond the competence of rule making power. Secondly, it had been urged that even if the challenge of ultra vires raised by the petitioner is not accepted, section 60, C.P.C. has to be read with Rule 104(6) as it stood on the date of coming into force of the said Rules i.e. 26-1-1963, since section 60 stands incorporated in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document