- (1.)HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find even a wee bit of reason to consider interference in this matter in extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction.
(2.)PUT in a nutshell, the material aspects of the matter are as follows: The petitioner has been holding the post of Chairperson of Data Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Limited, Data, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore ('the Society' hereinafter). There had been serious accusations about the illegalities and irregularities in the Society in operation of the Loan Waiver Scheme 2008 whereby, the loans amounting to Rs. 8,82,628/- were waived although the amount eligible to be waived was only Rs. 59,380/-. Another serious part of the matter was that in this questioned waiver, unwarranted relief was given to the petitioner himself and so also to his sons, as distinctly mentioned in the inquiry report dated 12.09.2011 (Annex. 4) wherein, it has, inter alia, been stated that:
The petitioner attempted to challenge the report aforesaid by way of a revision petition before the Hon'ble Co- operative Minister, who proceeded to reject the same with a specific and speaking order dated 24.04.2012, inter alia, with the following observations:- OMMITED

Seeking to question the orders aforesaid and the imminent consequential proceedings, it is strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the selection of the persons for loan waiver was made essentially by the Bank concerned itself and error, if any, had fundamentally been on the part of the officers of the Bank as mentioned in paragraph-2 of the report dated 12.09.2011. It is also submitted that such kind of errors or irregularities were found in relation to several of the societies in Jalore district but only the petitioner has been singled out for a prejudicial treatment though there has not been any willful or deliberate action on his part. The learned counsel has also contended that the proceedings under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 55 can only be adopted when it is a case of willful or intentional default.

The submissions made on behalf of the petitioner do not make out a case for interference in the writ jurisdiction particularly when it is noticed that by way of waiver, a substantial amount of Rs. 8,23,248/- came to be excessively waived. The excessive and impermissible waiver included a sum of Rs. 69,675/- in relation to the petitioner himself apart from Rs. 20,000/- each in relation to three sons of the petitioner. Even in relation to the fourth son of the petitioner, as against the permissible amount of Rs. 5,464/-, the waiver was granted to the extent of Rs. 62,814/- and thus, it had been another excessive waiver of Rs. 57,350/. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to submit that the petitioner has, in fact, deposited the entire of amount in question. This Court is clearly of opinion that looking to the nature of imputations and the illegality, mere deposit, even if made, does not nullify the delinquency on the part of the petitioner.

The attempt on the part of the petitioner to shift the burden of misappropriation of funds on the officers of the Bank remains thoroughly baseless particularly when it is noticed that the petitioner was the Chairperson of the Society; and a substantial part of the illegally waived amount related to himself and his sons.

(3.)THE Hon'ble Co-operative Minister has examined the matter in its right perspective and has found no case for interference in the revisional jurisdiction because of the facts available on record.
No case of jurisdictional error is made out so as to warrant interference in the writ jurisdiction.

The petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed.