The main legal point established is that attachment of property under Section 65 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act requires a valid connection to disputes under Section 55, and unsubstantiated claims are insufficient grounds for attachment.

Permod Kholi, J.

1. Respondent No. 5 is a Co-operative Society engaged in the business of providing economic aid to its members in the form of cash, fertilizers, insecticides etc. The society is managed by the executive body elected/constituted in a accordance with its bye laws. The executive body consists of 9 members. The society has various employees including Surjit Singh son of the petitioner, who was serving as Salesman, Fertilizers. During the scrutiny of accounts in the month of April, 2006 one Gurnam Singh Inspector of the society discovered various illegalities/irregularities and misappropriation of the amount. On detection of various irregularities, a team was constituted for verification of the accounts/The said team found embezzlement, misappropriation and fraud in the accounts. On the basis of such report, respondent No. 4 issued show-cause notices to the members of the Managing Committee as also some employees including Surjit Singh, son of the petitioners. Surjit Singh filed his reply to the show cause notice and on consideration of reply, respondent No. 4 vide his order dated 5.3.2007 exonerated Surjit Singh as is evident from his order (Annexure P-1). In the meantime, an F.I.R. No. 40 dated 13.4.2007 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. was registered with Police Station Machhiwara and the investigation was entrusted to special team constituting three I.P.S. officers of Punjab Police.

2. Respondent No. 4 also found one Rajender Singh, Secretary of the society as guilty of embezzlement amounting to Rs. 1.19 crores. The said Rajender Singh is said to have admitted the embezzlement and deposited an amount of Rs. 1.40 crores with society. On such deposit, he was reinstated by the Managing Committee vide resolution dated 16.10.2006 and was also imposed penalty of reduction to lower time scale. Later at the instance of the Chief Minister of the State the matter was referred to the Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana. The Vigilance Bureau conducted investigation, however, the presentation of challan has been stayed by this Court in another writ petition. In the meantime, the society passed resolution dated 13.11.2006 and resolved to attach 1 acre land of Surjit Singh son of the petitioners and also to attach the property of the petitioners. Copy of the resolution is annexed as P-3. On the basis of the aforesaid resolution a communication was sent on the same date to the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies to attach the land of the petitioner in favour of the society. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies No. 4 passed the order dated 14.11.2006 ordering attachment of the property of petitioners comprising of various Khasra number as detailed in the aforesaid order. He also directed that entry of attachment be made in the revenue record (Annexure P-5). The petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order before the Addl. Registrar (G), Co-operative Societies. This appeal also came to be rejected by the Appellate Authority vide the impugned order dated 19.8.2008 (Annexure P-6). The petitioners have challenged the resolution dated 13.11.2006 (Annexure P-3) passed by the society, order dated 14.11.2006 passed by respondent No. 4 and the order of rejection of the appeal dated 19.8.2008 passed by respondent No. 3 in the present petition, primarily on the ground that the petitioners have nothing to do with the embezzlement nor they are connected with the society in any manner and their property cannot be attached, even if, their son Surjit Singh is an accused in the F.I.R. and may be ultimately found to be involved in such embezzlement.

3. The society and the official respondent have filed their separate replies. The only argument raised on behalf of the respondent is that the attachment order does not in any manner cause any prejudice to the petitioners as no sale of the property of the petitioners has been ordered till date. It is also argued by Mr. Saggu, appearing on behalf of