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