SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(P&H) 2037

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Alok Singh, J.
S.P.Gupta
Versus
State Of Haryana
CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 13676 of 2009,
Decided On : JULY 15, 2010

The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the maintainability of appeal and revision under Sections 114 and 115 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act in the context of an award passed under Section 103.

Headnote:

Revision - Haryana Cooperative Societies Act - 102, 103, 114, 115 - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 102, 103, 114, and 115 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984, and interpreted the maintainability of appeal and revision in the context of an award passed under Section 103. The court held that an appeal is maintainable under Section 114(k) against an award passed under Section 103, and revision before the State Government is permissible if no appeal lies to the Government. The court also referred to a judgment establishing that revisional jurisdiction is not barred when appeal lies to an officer other than the State Government.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Court to challenge an order passed by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Cooperation Department, Govt. of Haryana, which set aside an order directing the allotment of a plot to the petitioner.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act was not barred as the award was passed by the Assistant Registrar, and dismissed the petition for being devoid of merits.

Issues: The issues involved the maintainability of appeal and revision under Sections 114 and 115 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act in the context of an order passed by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Cooperation Department, Govt. of Haryana.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an appeal is maintainable under Section 114(k) against an award passed under Section 103, and revision before the State Government is permissible if no appeal lies to the Government. The court also referred to a judgment establishing that revisional jurisdiction is not barred when appeal lies to an officer other than the State Government.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed for being devoid of merits.

Judgment

Alok Singh, J.

1. The petitioner by way of present petition has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 24.12.2008 (Annexure P-l) passed by Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Cooperation Department, Govt, of Haryana.

2. The brief facts of the present case are that a reference was made by the petitioner herein under Section 102 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act to decide as to whether petitioner is a valid existing member of the Alaknanda Cooperative Housing Society Limited. Learned Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Gurgaon having heard both the parties vide order dated 23.4.2008 held that petitioner herein is a valid existing member of the Society and directed a plot may be allotted to Mr. S.K. Gupta, the petitioner. Order of the Assistant Registrar dated 23.4.2008 was challenged before the State under Section 115 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act. Learned Financial Commissioner - respondent No. 1 allowed the revision and set aside the award/order passed by Assistant Registrar dated 23.4.2008 vide impugned judgment dated 24.12.2008. Feeling aggrieved from order dated 24.12.2008, the present petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that an order passed by Assistant Registrar under Section 103 of the Act can be assailed by way of an appeal before the Deputy Registrar under Section 114(2)(a). Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that since appeal is maintainable before the Deputy Registrar, hence revision was not maintainable before the State Government and Financial Commissioner has committed jurisdictional error by entertaining and allowing the revision vide impugned order.

4. Learned Sr. counsel for respondents No. 4 and 5 argued that revision before the State Government against the award passed under Section 103 of the Act is very well maintainable despite of availability of the appeal under Section 114(2)(a) of the Act. Learned Sr. counsel further argued that revision under Section 115 of the Act against the award passed under Section 103 of the Act is not maintainable only when appeal lies to the State Government. He states that in the present matter, appeal does not lie to the State Government, hence, revision was rightly entertained and decided by the Financial Commissioner vide impugned judgment.

5. To appreciate rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, it would be just and proper to reproduce Sections 102, 103, 114 and 115 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984:-

102. Dispute for arbitration- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute touching the constitution, establishment management or the business of a co-operative Society arises:-

(a) among members, past members and persons claiming through a member or deceased members; or

(b) between a member, past member or persons claiming through a member, past member or deceased member and the society, its committee or any officer, agent or employee of the society or liquidator, past or present; or

(c) between the Society or its committee and any past committee, any officer, agent or employee or any past officer, agent or employee or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased officer, agent of employee of the Society; or

(d) between the Society and any other society, between a Society and liquidator of another Society or between the liquidator of one Society and the liquidator of another Society; such disputes shall be referred to the arbitration of the Registrar for decision and no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such dispute.

(2) For the purpose of sub-section (1) the following shall be deemed to be dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a cooperative society, namely:-

(a) a claim by the Society for any debt or demand due to it from a member, or








































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top