K.M.Dayal, J. - (1.) The petitioner was the Chairman of the Committee of Management of Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd., respond nt no. 2. There was some partibandi in the Society. The petitioner recaived a notice on 17th July, 1973 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) levelling charges that the petitioner has misused the property of the society ; he misutilised 22 litres of petrol and verified the signatures of wrong persons on some important papers. By this notice the petitioner was reqired to appear be for 3 the Registrar, Cane Co-operative Societies, U.P., Lucknow on 8th August, 1973. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the aroresaid notice and appeared before th3 Registrar Cane Co-operative Societies on 8th August, 1973. According to para 12 of the writ petition the R gistrer was satisfied that on case had been made out and as such he directed that the charges levelled against the petitioner be dropped.
(2.) Again the petitioner was served wich another notice dated 11th September, 1973 on 18th September, 1973 By that notice the peitioner was required to submit his explanation to the Registrar, Cane Co-op. Societies within a week of receipt of the notice and appear defore the respondent No. 11 or in the office of the Cane Commissioner on 25th September, 1973 for personal hearing. Notice was in respect of certain charges regarding removal of 220 bags of Urea to his place insted of stocking it in the godown of the Samiti, it was also alleged that he has sold Urea at a rate higher than the rate fixed. By another letter, dated 15th September, 1973, the dated fixed in the notice, dated 11-9-78, was changed and the petitioner was directed to appear on 20th instead of 26th September, 73. This notice was served on the petitioner on 19th September, 1973. The petitioner rushed to Lucknow and reached the office of the U. P. Cane Commissioner on 20th as directed in the letter dated 15th September, 1973 but respondent no. 1 was not available as he was out of station. In para 17 of the writ petition the petitioner has sworn that the petitioner waited for the respondent on 20th and 21st September, 1973 but he did not return, consequently he came back. Thereafter the petitioner sent an explanation to the notice dated 11th September, 1973, on 25th September 1973 to the Registrar Cane Co-operative Societies' Lucknow. The petitioner did not received any information nor any other intimation for personal hearing. An order dated 16th November, 1973 was, however, passed by the Registrar, Cane Co-operative Societies, Lucknow, which was served on the petitioner on 29th November, 1973. That order, annexure-6 to the writ petition has been challenged in the present writ petition. It was specifically alleged in paras 20 and 30 of the writ petition that the petitioner was not given any hearing and the order (Annexure 6 to the petition) wrongly mentioned that the petitioner was heard on 25th September, 1973 and made certain statement regarding distribution of Urea etc. The main ground of the petition is that the petitioner was entitled to hearing and hearing having been granted for 20th September, 1973, which could not materialise, the petitioner ought to been given another opportunity of hearing to have explain his position. It is, however, argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the averment made in annexure-6 to the writ petition that the petitioner was heard, is absolutely incorrectly and false.
(3.) Two counter affidavits have been filed in the Instant case. One counter affidavit has been filed by Hari Singh Verma. who is Secretary of the Co-operative cane Development Union Ltd. Iqbalpur (Roorkee), respondent no. 2. The averment made in para 20 of the writ petition that the petitioner was denied in para 21 of that affidavit. The averments made in para 30 of the writ petition have been replied in para 37 of that affidavit where the dependent has sworn that this fact was not in the knowledge of the deponant. Another counter affidavit has been filed by Sri J P. Khare, Cane Development Inspector (Law), office of the Cane Commissioner. Para 20 of the writ petition has been replied in para 21 of the counter affidavit which merely stated that the order was legal, valid and in accordance with law. Except denial no reply was given to the fact abcut personal hearing. Para 30 is replied in para 37 of the counter affidavit. The allegations are that the petitioner personally appeared before respondent no. 1 on 25th September, 1973, Para 37 is verifeld on the basis of the perutal of repord where as para 21 has been varifisd on the basis of legal edvice. None of these relevant paras have been varifis d on personal knowledge. Learned Standing Counsel pointed out paragraphs 14, 17, 18 and 19 of his counter affidavit. Ail these paragraphs are verified from perusal of the record and not on the personal knowledge of respondent no. 1 or even Shri J. P. Khare. In paragraph 14 of the said affidavit it is mentioned that 25th September, 1973 was wrongly typed and the date fixed for personal jhearing before the Registrar was 20th Saptember, 1973. In para 17 of the affidavit he has sworn that the petitioner appeared before respondent no. 1 on 21st and 25th September, 1973. In para 18 it is again mentioned that the petitioner was heard on 21st September. 1973. Para 19 is also to the same effect that the petitioner was heard on 21st September, 1973 and the same day he submitted his explanation to respondent no. 1. From the impugned order (Annexure-6) of the writ petition we find that the order mentions about the hearing of the petitioner on 25th September, 1 573. There is no mention of any hearing on 21st September, 1973. The letter dated 11th September, 1973 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) was in respect of urea (some fertilizer) worth Rs. 10,549/- and the three charges were in respect of urea itself. There was no charge either about misuse of 22 liters of petrol or about verification of wrong person for payment as mentioned in the notice dated 17 July, 1973. Obviously notice dated 11th September, 1973 was only in respect of the charges relating to sale of Urea. From, Annexure-6 of the writ petition it appears that the petitione was given opportunity of hearing on 25-9-73 but after looking to the writ petition and the counter affidavit it is impossible to hold that the petitioner was heard no 25-9-1973. jAccording to para 14 of the counter affidavit of Shri J. P. Khare it is clear that the date fixed was 20th September, 1973 and not 25th September, 1973. From Paragraphs 18 and 19 of thesaid affidavit it appears that the petitioner was heard on 21 st September, 1973. That date does not find place in the impugned order any where. Then in paragraph 17 of the aforesaid affidavit it is asserted that petitioner appeared on 21st September, as well as 25th September, 1973 and he filed written statement on 21st September, 1973.;