M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 3.2.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge upholding the order dated 18.10.2010 (P-6) passed by Additional Registrar (General)-respondent No. 2 under the revisional power conferred by Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (for brevity "the Act").
(2.) The revision petition filed by respondent No. 3 was directed against the order dated 1.9.2008 (P-3) which has been issued by the Board of Directors of the Milkfed-appellant. It is not disputed before us that the appellate jurisdiction exercised by the Milkfed-appellant is by the Board which included the Registrar or his nominee as a member. Accordingly, any further remedy cannot be availed by respondent No. 3 before the Registrar/Additional Registrar of Cooperative Societies because no one can be permitted to hear appeal against his own order. The aforesaid question has been debated before a Full Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 4922 of 1989 decided on 14.7.2011. In the concluding para, proposition 3(iii) has been laid down in the following words:- "The remedy of revision is not barred in those cases where aggrieved person has a right of appeal under the Statutory Service Rules or Common Cadre Rules. An aggrieved party can challenge the order of Registrar or Deputy Registrar passed as an Appellate Authority under the Statutory Rules or Common Cadre Rules by filing a revision under Section 69 of the Punjab Act or under Section 115 of the Haryana Act as no remedy of appeal has been provided under Section 68 of the Punjab Act or under Section 114 of the Haryana Act against such order. But, if the appellate order is passed by the official of the Society and not by the Registrar or Deputy Registrar of the Cooperative Society, no revision is maintainable against such an order. The revision is maintainable against such an order. The revision is maintainable only against the order passed by the authority under the Act or a proceeding arising out of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.:
(3.) A perusal of the aforesaid para would show that the remedy of revision is not barred where aggrieved person has a right of appeal either under the Statutory Service Rules or Common Cadre Rules. In the present case, the remedy of appeal under the Common Cadre Rules before the Milkfed-appellant has been availed of and further remedy of revision could be availed before the State Government. In the present case, once the Registrar or his nominee has participated in the proceedings as Appellate Authority, no revision petition could have been entertained by the Additional Registrar. He cannot hear revision petition against his own order or against an order that has been passed by the Board of which he himself or his nominee has been the member. It would be patently against the principles of natural justice. The judicial maxim has throughout been that no man can be judge in his own cause. (nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa). In that regard reliance may be placed on the observations made in para No. 9 and 14 of the judgment rendered in the case of Delhi Financial Corporation v. Rajiv Anand (2004) 11 SCC 629. (also see judgment in the case of J. Mahapatra & Co. v. State of Orissa (1984) 4 SCC 103 ). Accordingly, order dated 18.10.2010 (P-6) passed by Additional Registrar(General) would be without jurisdiction and the same will not stand scrutiny of law. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has committed an error by upholding the order dated 18.10.2010(P-6) and by dismissing the writ petition.;