S.S. Dhavan, J. - (1.) This is a deplorable case in which the petitioner has suffered wrongful arrest in the process of realisation of dues as arrears of land revenue, and illustrates the dangers of vesting the Executive authorities with powers uncontrolled by any guiding principles or checks to arrest any citizen for dues which according to their erroneous interpretation of the law, are considered to be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. The petitioner was arrested under an order of the local Tehsildar and remained in custody for one day. On his furnishing security the Tehsildar directed his release and he was given one week's time for payment of the alleged dues. Almost immediately after his release he filed this petition impugning the legality of the entire proceedings which led to his arrest. The facts of this case, as proved or admitted by the parties, very briefly are these :
(2.) The petitioner was a share-holder of a Co-operative Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act 1912 under the name of the Banaras State Carpet Weavers' Co-operative Union Ltd., Bhadohi, district Banaras. He acted as Managing Director for a short interval of about eight months. On his resignation he was succceded by a man called Habib Ullah as Managing Director. According to the case of the petitioner, this Habib Ullah mismanaged the affairs of the Society and was even arrested at one time for embezzlement. The petitioner alleges that Habib Ullah owed a sum of Rs. 17,000/- to him (the petitioner), but to evade his liability, he manufactured a false case against the petitioner to the effect that he (the petitioner) owed a sum of Rs. 11,274/- to the Society. It is not necessary to give a detailed account of the controversy between the petitioner and Habib Ullah or between him and the Union as to whether any amount was due from him or not. This Court is only concerned with the legality or otherwise o the steps taken by the local officials at the instance of the Union to recover the amount alleged to be due from him. At first the matter was referred to arbitration by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Uttar Pradesh. But, while the reference was pending, the Society went into liquidation and a liquidator was appointed. He served a notice on the petitioner asking him to pay a sum of Rs. 17,322-8-6. It is admitted by the State that this sum consists of Rs. 8,721-0-6 as principal and the rest as interest calculated at 12 per cent per annum. The petitioner did not appear before the liquidator. There is some, controversy as to why he did not, the petitioner alleging that he was not aware of the date fixed by the liquidator and the latter saying that the petitioner deliberately stayed away. But nothing turns upon this question. On 12-7-1957 the then liquidator Mool Chand Yadava, held some kind of ex parte hearing and directed the recovery of the aforesaid amount from the petitioner under Section 42 (5) of the Co-operative Societies Act 1912. On 30-3-1958 his successor. Nirankar Lal passed an order directing that the amount in dispute should be recovered from the petitioner as "contribution and costs of liquidation under Clauses (b) and (d) of Section 42 (2) of the Co-operative Societies Act". He also sent a requisition to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies requesting him to move the Collector, Varanasi to realise this amount from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue under Section 42 (4-A) of the aforesaid Act. Thereupon the Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative Societies. Banaras set in motion the machinery for the realisation of this amount as arrears of land revenue. On 21-8-1958 the Tehsildar of Banaras issued a notice to the petitioner asking him to pay the amount. On his failure to do so, he issued on 11-9-1958 a warrant of arrest. The petitioner was arrested on 12-9-1958. On the next day he moved an application for permission to furnish security and for two weeks' time. It is not stated whether he wanted this time for payment or for seeking his legal remedies against the action taken against him. However, on 13-9-1958 he was released on furnishing security, having spent one day in custody. He has now come to this Court for relief and prays for the quashing of the entire proceedings including the warrant of arrest on the simple ground that they are completely unauthorised by law.
(3.) The petition was initially opposed by the State and a counter affidavit was filed. As this Court was not satisfied with the vague and somewhat evasive character of the statements contained in the counter affidavit, it directed the appearance in person of Mool Chand Yadava the liquidator who passed the order dated 12-7-1957 and of Nirankar Lal, the liquidator who subsequently made the request for the realisation of the disputed amount as arrears of land revenue. Both these persons were examined on oath at some length by the Court and their depositions are on the record. The Court also directed that the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies and the Tehsilclar of Banaras should file affidavits and the former was made a respondent in this petition under, an order of the Court, in which it was observed, inter alia, as follows : "After hearing learned counsel for both the sides I am provisionally of the view that the petitioner's arrest was illegal and he has been subjected to what is known to the law of torts as wrongful confinement. The record does not show who initiated the proceedings leading to the arrest of the petitioner. Evidently there were some nroeeedings for the recovery of the sum mentioned above as arrears of land revenue. There is a provision for the recovery of certain types of dues in the same manner as arrears of land revenue. Under Section 42 (4-A) of the Co-operative Societies Act 1912, the Collector has the power to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue on a requisition by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies. This power is confined to the recovery of any sum due as contribution to the assets of the Society or as costs of liquidation. But in the present case it appears that the peti-tioner was arrested for non-payment of a sum which was neither due as contribution to the assets nor as costs of liquidation and which he denied was due at all..... The Court is inclined to take a serious view of this case. As the result of an illegal arrest, a citizen of the Republic was deprived of his personal freedom. Every single official who, by his order or action, contributed to this illegal arrest is responsible and answerable to this Court. At present I am not even satisfied that the deci-sion to arrest the petitioner was made bona fide. He has alleged in paragraph 25 of his affidavit that he "is a man of substance having several houses of his own and has a good business of carpet making ....." He further says that "these proceedings for his arrest have been started with a view to defame him and harass him in every manner." It is somewhat difficult to understand -- and learned counsel for the respondents gave no explanation in this matter -- Why the liquidator or the Registrar, as the case may be, whose primary duty under the Cooperative Societies Act is to collect the assets of the Society in liquidation, should have preferred to exercise their option in favour of the arrest and detention of the petitioner in preference to the attachment and sale of his immovable property".;