MEHTABS S.GILL, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the prayer of the petitioner is for issuance of a writ in the nature of Cortiorari for quashing of impugned order dated 1.12.1999, Annexure P3.
(2.) IT has been averred by the petitioner that Shri Chander Shekhar son of Shri Brij Mohan, respondent No. 3 was appointed as a Cashier in Rajpur Bhain Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Limited, Rajpur Bhain, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur (hereinafter referred to as the Society). Respondent No. 3 Shri Balwant Singh stood surety for him to compensate the Society for any loss or embezzlement done by Shri Chander Shekhar. Shri Balwant Singh executed surety bond on 22.4.1983 and pledged 13 Kanals 16 Marlas of land in village Hukran, bearing Khewat No. 54, Khatauni No. 81-82, Khasra Nos. 29/23/5-7, 22/1/3-11 and 29/18/4-18. A copy of the surety bond has been attached as Annexure P1. It has been further averred that during service, Shri Chander Shekhar embezzled an amount of Rs. 4,80,776/-. An arbitration reference was made against him and respondent No. 3 Shri Balwant Singh, surety. The attachment of land of respondent No. 3 was made under Section 65 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the act). A copy of attachment order is attached as Annexure P2. The order passed under Section 65 of the Act was appealable under Section 68 of the Act. However, no appeal was filed by Respondent No. 3 but a petition under Section 3(4) of the Act was filed before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh. The Registrar, vide his order dated 1.12.1999 ordered that respondent No. 3 is liable to pay Rs. 10,000/- only for the loss caused to the Society by Chander Shekhar. In other words, order dated 28.2.1995 for the attachment of the land of the petitioner was set aside. This order has been attached as Annexure P3. It is this order which is under challenge and which the petitioner terms as illegal. The petitioner further alleges that incompetent petition was filed under Section 3(4) of the Act. It has been further averred that the Registrar has mis-interpreted surety bond to mean that respondent No. 4 was liable only to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- and that the surety bond is in two parts. The first part clearly shows that in case respondent No. 4 had misappropriated or embezzled the amount, then respondent No. 3 would be responsible in all respects.
(3.) NOTICE of motion was issued.;