Punjab-Haryana High Court
Charanjit Singh vs F.C. Cooperation on 19 August, 2013
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.18042 of 2013
Date of decision: 19.08.2013
Charanjit Singh
..... Petitioner
Versus
F.C. Cooperation, Punjab and others
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Ms. Jagdeep Bains, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
*****
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J. (Oral)
The impugned order was passed on 31.3.2010 by the Additional Registrar (I), Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh. It was held that the revision petition filed by the petitioner was not maintainable because the order challenged in the revision petition was passed under the Service Rules of the Markfed nor by the Government official under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. The petitioner relies on a Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Jasbir Singh and others v. Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division and others, 2011 (3) PLR 545, which holds that a revision is maintainable. The Full Bench decision was rendered on 14.7.2011 after the decision of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh (P-11). This view has been followed by the learned Single Judge Kumar Paritosh 2013.08.22 10:20 I agree to specified portions of this document CWP No.18042 of 2013 2 of this Court in CWP No. 14189 of 2010; B.S. Sohi v. Additional Registrar (I), Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh and others decided on 9.2.2012 together with 3 connected cases.
Since there was a direction contained in the order of the learned Single Judge that the matter would be carried to the State Government, a revision was filed before the Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab, Chandigarh, who vide his order dated 24.5.2012, found that the order dated 31.3.2010 passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh was not challenged. Instead, the petitioner, then chose to challenge the order of the Managing Director and its Smaller Committee of the Board of the Directors of Markfed, who are punishing and appellate/confirming authorities in cases of disciplinary action. In this manner, the petitioner met a cul de sac.
In the circumstances and in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court, it would be just and fair if the entire matter is remitted back to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh to re-examine the matter on merits, since a revision petition is maintainable before him. The decision of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh dated 31.3.2010 cannot be castigated since a view was taken in conformity with the then prevailing law. In the changed circumstances, this writ petition is allowed.
No ground is found to interfere with the orders of the Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab, Chandigarh since the entire matter is being directed to re-start at the stage of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh.
The petitioner would appear before the Registrar, Cooperative Kumar Paritosh 2013.08.22 10:20 I agree to specified portions of this document CWP No.18042 of 2013 3 Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh on 16.9.2013. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies would issue notice to Markfed and proceed to decide the case on merits after hearing both sides.
Allowed to the extent indicated above.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA)
Aug. 19, 2013 JUDGE
Paritosh Kumar
Kumar Paritosh
2013.08.22 10:20
I agree to specified portions
of this document