- (1.) By this judgment I shall dispose of two cross-petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the facts giving rise to which are these. The Amritsar Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) is a "central society" within the meaning of the definition of that expression as given in clause (b) of the Explanation to Section 15-A of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), inasmuch as its members include "primary societies" which in turn are composed exclusively of individuals. That Section was introduced in the Act by the Punjab Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the amending Act) and minus the Explanation, runs thus : "15-A. (1) No individual shall be admitted as member of a central or apex society unless such a society has been exempted by the Registrar in this behalf, by a general or special order. (2) The central and apex societies having individuals as members On the date of commencement of the Punjab Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 1969, shall retire the shares of such individuals within a period of three years of such commencement in the prescribed manner". Under its rule-making power, the Punjab Government framed the following rule (rule 18-A) prescribing the manner in which shares of individuals members of central and apex societies were to be retired in accordance with the provisions of Section 15-A of the Act : "18-A. The central and apex societies (having individuals as members) shall retire the share of individual members in the following manner, namely :- (i) At least one-third of the shares shall be retired every year; (ii) The names of the persons whose shares are to be retire under clause (i) shall be taken in an alphabetical order in Gurmukhi script; and (iii) The payment in respect of shares to be retired shall be made in full at one time." The amending Act came into force on the 10th of September, 1969, and consequently the Bank had to retire one-third of the shares of individual members by the 9th of September, 1970. Purporting to act under the provisions of Section 15-A, the Bank drew up a list of 40 individuals who were share-holders of the Bank and whose shares were to be retired by the date last mentioned. The name of Hardev Singh Gill, the then President of the Bank, figured at serial No. 32 of that list and he was informed by the Manager of the Bank, by means of letter No. 1730 dated the 10th of September, 1970, that his share/shares amounting to Rs. 100/- stood retired with effect from that date in accordance with the provisions of Section 15-A of the Act and rule 18-A above quoted. The list was approved by the Board of Directors in their meeting held on the 19th of September, 1970. Aggrieved by the retirement of his shares as stated above, Hardev Singh Gill filed an appeal under Section 68 of the Act before the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as the Deputy Registrar) who admitted the same and also passed an interim order, purporting to act under Section 70 of the Act, to the effect that the appellant before him would continue to enjoy the status of a member and of the President of the Bank during the pendency of the appeal. Against this interim order the Bank went up in revision to the State Government under Section 69 of the Act and the same was decided by Shri S.P. Karwal, Under, Secretary, Co-operative Department, on the 24th of December, 1970. Shri Karwal held that no appeal lay to the Deputy Registrar under Section 68 of the Act but that the appeal filed before him by Hardev Singh Gill could be treated as a petition for revision of the order of the Bank. In this view of the matter he dismissed the revision petition preferred to him.
(2.) One of the petitions, namely, Civil Writ No. 65 of 1971 has been filed by the Bank and its present president Sadhu Singh, on whose behalf the interim order passed by the Deputy Registrar under Section 70 of the Act and Shri Karwal's order dated the 24th of December, 1970, have been challenged before me on the following two grounds : (1) No petition for revision can be entertained under Section 69 of Act unless it is made by a party to a reference as contemplated by the provisions of that section. The appeal filed before the Deputy Registrar could, therefore, not be treated as such a petition nor had Shri Karwal the jurisdiction to pass any order on the revisional side. (2) The Act does not provide any right of appeal against retirement of shares in pursuance of the provisions of Section 15-A of the Act. he cross-petition (Civil Writ No. 1227 of 1971) has been instituted by Hardev Singh Gill whose learned counsel has raised the following contentions at the hearing : (i) The Registrar and the Government have powers to revise decisions taken by any society over which they have jurisdiction on the application of any party aggrieved thereby. Hardev Singh Gill being aggrieved by the decision of the Bank to retire his shares, the appeal preferred by him to the Deputy Registrar (exercising powers delegated by the Registrar) could be treated as a revision petition and Shri Karwal's order, in so far as it lays down that proposition, was not passed without jurisdiction. (ii) Retirement of shares of a member of the Bank entails the consequence of his own retirement as such member and, therefore, amounts to his expulsion from the membership of the Bank. Section 68 of the Act gives to an expelled member a right of appeal. The appeal filed by Hardev Singh Gill to the Deputy Registrar was, therefore, fully competent.
(3.) Before I embark on a discussion of the above-contention I may reproduce here the provisions of clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 68 as well as Section 69 of the Act : "68. (1) An appeal shall lie under this Section against - x x x x x (d) a decision of a co-operative society expelling any of its members; x x x x x (2) an appeal against any decision or order under sub-section (1) shall be made within sixty days from the date of decision or order: (a) if the decision or order was made by the Assistant Registrar to the Deputy Registrar; (b) if the decision or order was made by the Deputy Registrar to the Registrar or such Additional Registrar or Joint Registrar as may be authorised by the Registrar in this behalf, (c) if the decision or order was made by the Joint Registrar or Additional Registrar, to the Registrar; (d) if the decision or order was made by the Registrar, to the Government; (e) if the decision or order was made by any other person, to the Registrar or such Additional Registrar or Joint Registrar or Deputy Registrar or Assistant Registrar as may be authorised by the Registrar in this behalf. x x x x x x." "69. The State Government and the Registrar may, suo motu or on the application of a party to a reference, call for and examine the record of any proceedings in which no appeal under Section 68 lies to the Government or the Registrar, as the case may be, for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed and if in any case it appears to the Government or the Registrar that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled or revised, the Government or the Registrar, as the case may be, may, after giving persons affected thereby an opportunity of being heard, pass such order thereon as it or he may deem fit.";