The court reaffirmed that provisions for coercive recovery of funds via arrest warrants under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act do not violate constitutional rights, asserting the validity of such processes.

1. The petitioner who was the manager of the opponent No. 2 Co - operative Society and also the member of its managing committee was held to be liable jointly with others by the order of the Co - operative Tribunal dated September 19, 1965, and was ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 25149-51 which had been defalcated. After the said liability was finally fixed in appeal, the said award of the Tribunal was sought to be executed against the petitioner by coercive process under the Land Revenue Code as provided under S.103 (b) of the Gujarat Co - operative Societies Act. 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act. As warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner, the petitioner has challenged the said coercive process by attacking the vires of the provisions of S.103 of the Act and S.157 and S.158 of the Code as violating Art.14. The petitioner has also challenged the action of the Collector as he tried to follow this harsher procedure of coercive recovery without exhausting other processes. S.103 (b) was also attacked on the ground that it was also repugnant to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code for recovery of such award which was deemed to be a decree. The petitioner has therefore on these grounds challenged the arrest warrant as violating his fundamental right in this petition. The District Registrar in his affidavit has stated that out of five delinquents the petitioner had not filed any appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, besides the original liability of Rs. 38,753.63 fixed on the petitioner under S.93 along with the others additional liability of the petitioner was fixed in appeal at the sum mentioned by him. The certificate under S.103 (b) was issued on December, 7, 1967 and the Collector had been moved to recover this amount as arrears of land revenue. The warrant of arrest was issued under S.157 of the Code and sent to the P. S. I. for execution at Veraval but as the petitioner was not at Veraval, the warrant could not be executed. It was also stated that all remedies were exhausted and as no other remedy was available the Special Recovery Officer had requested the Collector on November 8, 1968, to take action under S.157 of the Code. The attachment procedure could not be followed as no property of the petitioner could be traced. The respondents, therefore, tried to support the validity of the aforesaid warrant, and have further contended that the aforesaid sections are intra vires.

2. S.103 of the Act is as under : -
"Every order passed by the Registrar or a person authorised by him under S.93 or by the Registrar, his nominee or board of nominees under S.100 or 101, every order passed in appeal under S. 102, every order passed by a Liquidator under S.110, every order passed by the State Government in appeal against orders passed under S.110, and every order passed in revision under S.155 shall, if not carried out.
(a) on a certificate signed by the Registrar or a Liquidator be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court, as defined in clause (2) of S.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and shall be executed in the same manner as a decree of such Court, or
(b) be executed according to the provisions of the Land Revenue Code and the rules thereunder for the time being in force for the recovery of arrears of land revenue :
Provided that, any application for the recovery in such manner of any such sum shall be made to the Collector and shall be accompanied by a certificate signed by the Registrar, or by any Assistant Registrar to whom the said power has been delegated by the Registrar. Such application shall be made within twelve years from the