JADEJA GANPATSINH KANUBHA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Heard learned Counsels for the parties. The petitioner has taken loan from the Society, respondent No. 4 herein for purchase of tractor. He made default in payment of instalments of loan and as such the respondent No. 4 filed Lavad suit No. 12 of 1982 for recovery of amount of Rs. 92,000.00 and odd. The Lavad suit has been withdrawn by the Society without prejudice to their right to proceed to recover the amount in question under the provisions of Sec. 106 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act"). The Society has then proceeded under Sec. 106 of the said Act against the petitioner and the Assistant District Registrar of the Co-operative Societies (Cooperation) issued a certificate under Sec. 106 of the said Act for recovery of the amount of loan advanced to the petitioner as land revenue. This certificate is challenged by the petitioner by filing this Special Civil Application.

(2.) . Shri P. M. Thakker, learned Counsel for the petitioner, made two-fold contentions before this Court. Firstly, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that once the Society has decided to recover the amount of loan by filing Lavad suit, it has no right to resort to the provisions of Sec. 106 of the said Act for effecting recovery of amount of loan. If has next been contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 has not given notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before issuing certificate for recovery of amount of loan against him under Sec. 106 of the said Act.

(3.) . On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4, Shri Y. S. Mankad submitted that Sec. 106 has been inserted in the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 after filing of the Lavad suit by the Society. Under Sec. 106, a special provision has been made for recovery of loans advanced by the Society to its members for the purchase of tractors etc., and as such, it has all right to resort to the said remedy after withdrawing the Lavad suit. Replying to the second contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Y. S. Mankad, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 contended that the petitioner has been given notice under Sec. 106 of the said Act and after giving full opportunity of hearing, the respondent No. 2 has issued certificate for recovery of amount of loan as land revenue under Sec. 106 of the said Act.