N.K.SODHI - (1.) By a resolution allegedly passed on 24-3-1995 in a meeting of the Managing Committee of the Kiranj Co-operative Credit and Service Society Ltd., Kiranj (for short the Society) Siri Chand respondent was appointed as a clerk. A complaint was received that no such resolution had been passed and on an inquiry conducted by the concerned Inspector, Co-operative Societies it was found that the action of the Managing Committee was contrary to the Rules and Bye-laws and a recommendation was made for the cancellation of the resolution. The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies exercising the powers of the Registrar issued notices to the members of the Managing Committee and after hearing them rescinded the resolution by his order dated 5-10-1995 under Section 27 of the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (hereinafter called the Act). Feeling aggrieved by this order, Siri Chand filed an appeal under Section 114 of the Act which was heard by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana. The Registrar found that six members of the Managing Committee out of eight had deposed before the Deputy Registrar that they were not aware of any resolution appointing a clerk in the alleged meeting held on 24-3-1995 and that they never received any agenda for the meeting nor did the meeting take place. He was, therefore, of the view that the resolution had been rightly rescinded and the appeal was consequently dismissed on 19-8-1996. This order of the Registrar was challenged by Siri Chand respondent in this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 19113 of 1996 which was dismissed in limine on 13-12-1996 and the following order was passed:-"No ground for interference under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been made out in the impugned order in which pure finding of fact has been recorded.Dismissed."
(2.) After the dismissal of the writ petition Siri Chand respondent filed a revision petition before the State Government under Section 115 of the Act which was allowed by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Co-operation Department as per order dated 30-4-1997 and the case was remanded to the Registrar for a fresh decision. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 19-8-1996 passed by the Registrar had been affirmed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 19113 of 1996 and, therefore, the State Government could not revise that order subsequently and remand the case to the Registrar. Shri Dahiya, on the other hand, contended that the earlier writ petition had been dismissed in limine and as such the order of the High Court did not operate as res judicata and it could not debar the State Government from revising the order of the Registrar in exercise of its powers under Section 115 of the Act. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and are of the view that the writ petition deserves to succeed. The High Court is undoubtedly a superior Court to that of the Registrar as well as to that of the State Government exercising revisional powers under the Act and, therefore, when Civil Writ Petition No. 19113 of 1996 was dismissed against the order dated 19-8-1996 passed by the Registrar, his order stood merged in that of this Court. Thus, the State Government being a Court inferior to the High Court could not revise the order of the Registrar which had merged in that of this Court. A contrary view would not only be against the public policy but would confer powers on inferior Tribunals to set at naught the decision of superior Courts including that of the High Court passed in writ jurisdiction. This could not be the intention of the law. The question whether an order passed by the Financial Commissioner which was affirmed by this Court by dismissing a writ petition against that order could subsequently be reviewed by the Financial Commissioner came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Amarjit Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Taxation, Punjab, Chandigarh, AIR 1978 Punj and Har 329 and the learned Judges answered the same in the negative holding that the order of the Financial Commissioner having merged in the order of the High Court which was a superior Court could not thereafter be reviewed by the inferior Court. The Division Bench judgment of this Court in Amarjit Singh's case (supra) was affirmed by a Full Bench of this Court in Smt. Daya Wanti v. Yadvindra Public School Patiala, 1996 (1) 112 Pun LR 208 and it was held that a decision of the High Court even if in limine could not be set aside by an inferior Court even though it may be exercising statutory remedy by way of review or revision. In this view of the matter, the learned counsel for the petitioner was right in contending that the order of the Registrar which had been upheld by this Court in civil writ petition 19113 of 1996 could not be revised by the State Government while exercising its powers under Section 115 of the Act.;