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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 2232

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
ANAND SHARMA
HANUMAN PRASAD MEENA S/O SHRI KALYAN MAL MEENA – Appellant
Versus
REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES – Respondent
CW / 8681 / 2025



##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:5144]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8681/2025

Hanuman Prasad Meena S/o Shri Kalyan Mal Meena, Aged About

61 Years, R/o Village Khuredi, Tehsil Piplu, District Tonk,

Rajasthan.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. Registrar Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan, Sahkar

Bhawan, Jaipur.

2. Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Tonk.

3. Nathdi Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Nathdi, Tehsil

Piplu, District Tonk, Through Its Manager.

4. The Central Cooperative Bank Tonk, Through Its

Managing Director.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yudhishter Ratnoo, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hansraj Kuldeep, AGC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Order

04/02/2026

1. By way of filing this writ petition, petitioner has

challenged the order dated 27.12.2024 issued by the office of

Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Tonk, whereby enquiry

under Section 57(1) of Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001

(for short ‘the Act of 2001’) was initiated against the petitioner for

alleged embezzlement of Rs.3,23,000/-.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the

relevant time, the petitioner was posted as Sahayak Vyavasthapak

(Manager) of Nathdi Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Limited,

Panchayat Samiti Piplu, District Tonk. He submits that all the

(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 11:43:52 AM)

(Downloaded on 07/02/2026 at 07:22:15 AM)

##PAGE2##

[2026:RJ-JP:5144] (2 of 5) [CW-8681/2025]

financial affairs all the society were subjected to audit after end of

every financial year. He submitted that such audit report is

submitted by the Auditor to the Registrar, and as per audit report

of the Auditor for the year 2016-17 and 2017-18, which were

submitted by him in the year 2017-18, the alleged financial

irregularities were reflected in the audit report. Even in the report

of financial year 2020-21, the Auditor specifically recommended

for taking action against the petitioner for alleged embezzlement

of Rs.3,23,000/-. Learned counsel submits that however, it

appears that the authorities were not satisfied by the earlier

reports given by the Auditor, therefore, no action was taken

against him at the relevant time.

3. Learned counsel submits that first time vide order

dated 27.12.2024 an enquiry under Section 57(1) of the Act of

2001 has been directed to be initiated by the Deputy Registrar,

Tonk, by appointing Inspector-Co-operatives as Enquiry Officer.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon proviso

pointed to Section 57(1), which reads as under:-

“57. Surcharge.- (1) If on the basis of an audit,

inquiry, inspection or a Liquidator's report made

under the provisions of this Act, it comes to the

knowledge of the Registrar 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 the

provisions of this Act, the rules or the bye-laws or

has caused any deficiency in the assets of the

society by wilful negligence or has misappropriated

or fraudulently retained any money or other

property belonging to such society, the Registrar

may, 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:

(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 11:43:52 AM)

(Downloaded on 07/02/2026 at 07:22:15 AM)

##PAGE3##

[2026:RJ-JP:5144] (3 of 5) [CW-8681/2025]

• Provided that no inquiry into the conduct

shall be done under this section by a person

who has earlier submitted report of audit,

inquiry, inspection or liquidation in the same

matter:

• Provided further that no such inquiry shall

be held after the expiry of six years from the

date of an act or omission or after the expiry

of two years from the date of knowledge of

the Registrar of such act or omission:

• Provided also that any business loss

occurred due to an act done or decision taken

in the interest of the society with a common

business prudence shall not be a subject

matter of such inquiry.

5. By placing reliance upon the afores

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