Honble MADAN, J. — The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition, briefly stated are that the petitioner had opened a Bank-account with the Rajasthan State Industrial Co- operative Bank Ltd., Jaipur (respondent No.2 herein) and the petitioner was given over-draft facilities by the Bank upto Rs.40,000/-. It has been contended in the writ petition that some employees of the Bank had committed forgery and the petitioners account was also fabricated though the said allegations have been denied by the petitioner. A report was also lodged with the police by the Bank and on that basis a criminal case vide FIR No.273/83 was instituted with P.S. Ashok Nagar, Jaipur in respect of offences under Sections 420/467/468/120-B and 471 IPC. Since some of the Bank employees were also involved in the embezzlement, proceedings under Section 74 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) were also initiated against the bank employees as well as against the petitioner. It has been further contended in the writ petition that before initiating proceedings under section 74 of the Act Investigating Audit was done by the Department and Audit Report was submitted to the Bank by the 3 auditors, who were so appointed to conduct the audit. It was on the basis of the Audit Report that proceedings under section 74 of the Act were initiated and that the petitioner was also notified to participate in the said proceedings. In pursuance of the audit proceedings the shop and house of the petitioner were attached by respondent No.3 and the goods confiscated from the shop were sold at a very low price than the estimated cost of the goods which was worth Rs.50.000/-. The petitioner filed an application for release of the attachment and for handing over the possession of the shop and house in question belonging to the petitioner under Section 74 of the Act before the respondent No.4. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.3 had no jurisdiction either to attach the shop as well as the house belonging to the petitioner or to have sold the goods lying therein, as he was not authorised to do so in terms of the provisions of Section 74 of the Act. It will be pertinent to refer the provisions of section 74 (1) of the Act, which provides as under: —

"74. Surcharge.—(1) If in the course of an audit, inquiry, inspection or the winding up of a co-operative society, it is found that any person, who has taken any part in the organisation or management of such society or who is or has at any time been an officer or an employee of the society, has made any payment contrary to this Act, the rules or the bye-laws or has caused any deficiency in the assets of the society by breach of trust or willful negligence or has misappropriated or fraudulently retained any money or other property belonging to such society, the Registrar may, of his own motion or on the application of the committee, liquidator or any creditor, inquire himself or direct any person authorised by him by an order in writing in this behalf, to inquire into the conduct of such person :

Provided that no such inquiry shall be held after the expiry of six years from the date of any act or omission referred to in this sub-section."

(2). It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that keeping in view the aforesaid statutory provisions and the safeguard available under the said provisions to the petitioner, it was not open to the Registrar to effect the attachment of the property in question as he was having limited scope of powers under the said provision in as much as the Registrar on the basis of the Audit Report or Inquiry or Inspection Report, in respect of the remissions in question, could, at the most, on his own motion or. on the application of the committee, liquidator or any creditor, could inquire either himself or direct any person authorised by him, by an order in writing in this behalf, regarding conduct

Click Here to Read the rest of this document