Harcharan Rajpali vs Collector, Tikamgarh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2008 Supreme(MP) 544

2009 jk fu 51 2009 RN 51
¼mPp U;k;ky;½ (HIGH COURT)
U;k- ds-ds- ykgksVh
K.K. Lahoti, J.
gjpj.k jktikyh fo- dyDVj] Vhdex<+ rFkk vU;
fjV ;kfpdk Ø- 8707] 9324] 9448 rFkk 9592 lu~ 2007(
fu.khZr fnukad 24-4-2008A
Harcharan Rajpali v. Collector, Tikamgarh and others
Writ Petitions No. 8707, 9324, 9448 and 9592 of 2007;
Decided on 24.4.2008.

Advocates:
lat; iVsy] ;kphx.k dh vksj ls( ih-,u- nqcs] mi^egkf/koäk]
çR;FkhZ Ø- 1 rFkk 2 dh vksj ls( khy ukxw] çR;FkhZ Ø-4 dh vksj lsA
Sanjay Patel for petitioners; P.N. Dubey, Dy. Advocate General
for respondents No.1 and 2; Sheel Nagu for respondent No.4.

Headnote: ¼1½ lgdkjh lkslkbVh vf/kfu;e] 1960 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 58&[k ¼1½ rFkk ijarqd 1 && jktLo olwyh vf/kfu;e] 1890 && /kkjk 5 && 2005 esa ;Fkk la‘kksf/kr vf/kfu;e] 1960 dh /kkjk 58&[k && lkslkbVh ds ns; dh olwyh ds fy, jktLo olwyh izek.ki= && dsoy jftLVªkj ds vkns‘k ij tkjh fd;k tk ldrk gS && /kkjk 58&[k ¼1½ ds ijarqd 1 ds vuqlkj O;frdzeh dks mlds fo:) dksbZ vkns‘k ikfjr djus ls iwoZ jftLVªkj rFkk dyDVj }kjk lquk tkuk pkfg, && jktLo olwyh izek.ki= tkjh djus ls iwoZ Hkh mls lquk tkuk pkfg,A ¼ iSjk 10 ,oa 11

       ¼2½ jktLo olwyh vf/kfu;e] 1890 && /kkjk 5 && dyDVj }kjk jktLo olwyh izek.ki= tkjh fd;k tkuk && mls izFker% Lo;a dk lek/kku djuk vko‘;d gS fd ftl jkf‘k dh olwyh bZfIlr gS] D;k og Hkw&jktLo ds cdk;k ds :Ik esa olwy fd;k tk ldrk gS && f}rh;r%] mls lek/kku djuk gksrk gS fd D;k ,slh izkFkZuk djus okyk O;fDr fof/k ds v/khu ,slk djus ds fy, l{ke gSA ¼ iSjk 12

       ¼3½ lgdkjh lkslkbVh vf/kfu;e] 1960 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 84&d rFkk 85 && lkslkbVh dks ns; jde vfHkfuf‘pr djus ds fy, jftLVªkj lE;d:Ik ls l‘kDr gS && dyDVj ls jktLo olwyh izek.ki= izkIr djus ds fy, og izek.ki= iznku dj ldrk gS && jktLo olwyh izek.ki= izkIr djus ds fy, lkslkbVh dyDVj ds ikl lh/ks ugha tk ldrh && /kkjk 85 esa ,sls vkns‘k ds fu"iknu ds fy, mica/k gSA ¼ iSjk 13
        (1) Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (M.P.) -- S. 58-B (1) and proviso I -- Revenue Recovery Act. 1890 -- S. 5 -- S. 58-B of 1960 Act as amended in 2005 -- RRC for recovery of dues of society -- can be issued only on order of Registrar -- defaulter should be heard by Registrar and Collector before any order is passed against him as per proviso I to S. 58-B (1) -- he should also be heard before RRC is issued. [Paras 10& 11

        (2) Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 -- S. 5 -- issuance of RRC by Collector -- he is required to satisfied himself firstly whether the Slim sought to be recovered can be recovered as arrears of land revenue -- secondly he has to satisfy as to whether person making such request is competent to do so under the law. [Para 12
        (3) Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (M.P.) -- Ss. 84-A and 85 n Registrar is duly empowered to ascertain amount of dues to the society - he alone can grant certificate to obtain RRC from Collector -- society cannot directly approach Collector to obtain RRC -- S. 85 provides for execution of such order. [Para 13

ORDER

1. In all the aforesaid cases, recovery initiated by respondent Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank, Tikamgarh through Revenue Recovery Certificates (hereinafter referred to as 'RRC' for short) issued by the Collector, Tikamgarh are under challenge.

2. As the common questions of law are involved in all the aforesaid cases based on similar facts, all these cases are being decided by this common order.

3. In WP No. 8707/2007, the petitioner has challenged RRC Annexure P-l, dated 18.4.2007 issued by the Collector, Tikamgarh on the ground that petitioner was an employee of Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank, Tikamgarh (hereinafter referred to as 'Bank' for short) and was appointed as the Committee Manager in Prathmik Krishi Sakha Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Shivpuri, Kundleshwar, District Tikamgarh. He was appointed in the year 1975 and continued in the service of the said society. He was promoted on the post of Supervisor on 2nd December, 1997 and served in the Samiti till his retirement on 31.8.2006. The petitioner received a notice from Tahsildar, Tikamgarh in respect of proceedings initiated against the petitioner on the basis of RRC issued by the Collector, Tikamgarh on 18.4.2007. The petitioner submitted his objections before the Tahsildar and thereafter filed this petition on following grounds :

(1) That no show-cause notice was issued or opportunity of hearing was extended to the petitioner before issuing such an RRC.

(2) That no such an amount was due against the petitioner.

(3) No enquiry was conducted against the petitioner.

On the aforesaid grounds the RRC for Rs.8,78,000/- has been assailed before this Court.

4. The respondent No.4 has filed reply in which it is stated that petitioner was issued a charge-sheet on 22.8.2005 as Annexure R-4-1. The departmental proceedings could not proceed as the petitioner attained age of superannuation and retired on 31.8.2006 from the post of Supervisor. In Para 6, it is stated that a detailed investigation was made by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies in respect of complaints of wide spread defalcation of financial assistance extended by respondents to various primary credit Cooperative Societies including the respondent Society in which number of employees including the petitioner were found responsible for indulging in misconduct of defalcation. In Para 7 of the reply it is stated that the purpose of obtaining a decree from the Registrar, Cooperative Societies is to enable the employee concerned to be afforded an opportunity of being heard before an order of recovery is passed against him. In the instant case, the reasonable opportunity in the shape of informing the petitioner of the alleged misconduct of defalcation and conduction of an inquiry were completed and therefore, the purpose of approaching Registrar, Cooperative Societies for obtaining a decree in this respect was achieved, though by another mode. On the aforesaid ground the respondent No.4 submitted that due procedure was followed and RRC was rightly issued at the instance of respondent No.4 by the Collector, Tikamgarh.

The State has adopted the return filed by respondent No.4.

4-A. In WP No. 9324/2007, petitioner Raghuraj Singh has challenged the RRC Annexure P-l, dated 18.4.2007 issued by the Collector, Tikamgarh at the instance of respondent No.4 for Rs.4,56,779/- along with 18% interest, on the ground that petitioner has filed a case before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies under section 64 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1960' for short), which is registered as Case No. 187/2007. During the pendency of the case, RRC has been issued by the Collector. The petitioner on receiving notice from the Tahsildar submitted his objection to the Revenue Recovery Certificate, but without any result. As the petitioner was apprehending recovery under the RRC, so this petition has been filed on the same grounds which are raised in WP No. 8707/2007 by the petitioner Ha