K.S.LODHA,J. - (1.)THE Assistant Registrar, Co -operative Societies, Ganga Nagar issued a notice dated 31 -9 -70 to the petitioner Ram Prakash saying that a sum of Rs. 12,441.20 prineipal+5,514.70 interest total 17,955.90 was out -standing against the petitioner to the Ganganagar Kisan Co -operative Marketing Society Ltd., Sri Ganganagar on account of loan till 12th December, 1970 which had not been paid by the petitioner and, therefore, he should either deposit the above amount with the said society by 15 -1 -71 under intimation to the Assistant Registrar or if he had any objection to this demand, he may submit the same to him by 15 -8 -71.On 16 -8 -71 the petitioner appeared before the Assistant Registrar and asked for a copy of the 'Khata' and also requested that the account may be explaind to him. He filed an application (Ex 8) in this respect. Thereafter on 5 -,0 -71 the petitioner filed a reply (Ex. 3) to the notice stating that the rate of interest had not been settled between him and the society and that only interest at the Government rate should therefore, be charged against him. The other request made was that the petitioner was a poor cultivator and, therefore, the petitioner may be allowed to pay the amount in easy instalments. There upon the learned Assistant Registrar by his order dated 5 -10 -71 (Ex.4) found that the interest at the rate of 12% per annum was being charged by the society from all the members and, therefore, it was proper to charge the same rate of interest from the petitioner. He found that on 30 -6 -71 a sum of Rs. 19,448.84 was outstanding against the petitioner. The petitioner admitted this amount and, therefore, he was directed that he should pay the amount by 15 -11 -71. It was also directed that interest at the rate of 12% per annum shall continue on this amount from 1 -7 -71. Agrrieved of this order the petitioner filed a revision before the Registrar, Co -operative Societies but the same was rejected on 24 -9 73 vide Annx 6. Still agrrieved by the order of the learned Registrar the petitioner filed a further revision before the Government and the same was heard by the Special Secretary Co -operative Deptt. who rejected the the same on 2 -12 -75. The petitioner has now approached this Court by way of a writ application praying that the order of the Assistant Registrar dated 5 -10 -71 and those of the Registrar and the Special Secretary, Co -operative Department, Government of Rajasthan referred to above may be quashed.
(2.)THE case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 5 Ganganagar Kisan Co operative Marketing Society Ltd. was not a credit society nor the amount outstanding against the petitioner was a loan and, therefore, the society could not have moved the Assistant Registrar for the recovery of the same and the Assistant Registrar could not have exercised the power under Section 117 of the Rajasthan Co -operative Societies Act, 1965 that no interest was settled between the petitioner and the society and, therefore, no interest was chargeable but the learned Assistant Registrar did not make any enquiry in this respect. It was also the case of the petitioner that the Assistant Registrar should not have invoked his power under Section 117 of the Act in the circumstances of this case but resort should have been made to Section 77 of the Act. It was also contended that a copy of the application made to the Assistant Registrar was not supplied to the petitioner either along with notice or even after the demand and, therefore, the petitioner was not in a position to raise objections to the same. He, therefore, did not have proper opportunity of hearing and the proceedings before the Assistant Registrar were thus vitiated. It was also contended that the petitioner never admitted the amount being due and the statement contained in the order dated 5 -10 -71 that the petitioner admitted the liability is patently wrong. It was further contended that the learned Registrar, Co -operative Societies wrongly upheld the order of the Assistant Registrar by observing that the revision was against the consent order whereas there was no consent order or decree. Similarly the Special Secretary also improperly rejected the revision.
In reply the non -petitioner Nos. I to 4 have refuted these contentions and have further stated that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

(3.)I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.