- (1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced receipt depositing costs of Rs. 5,00/- in pursuance of order dated 07.07.2014, photocopy of which is taken on record. C.M. No. 8421 of 2014 Allowed, as prayed for. Annexures P-32 to P-34 are taken on record. C.W.P. No. 7930 of 2014 Instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 07.01.2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies, U.T. Chandigarh whereby reference filed by respondent No. 3 under Sections 55 and 56 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (in short '1961 Act') has been allowed and order dated 09.07.2013 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Secretary Department of Cooperation whereby appeal filed by the petitioner-Society has been dismissed. In brief, facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are to the effect that respondent No. 3 made a reference under Sections 55 and 56 of the '1961 Act' for refund of Rs. 1,38,657/- from the petitioner-Society which allegedly charged excess amount on account of flat allotted to him. It was also prayed that respondent No. 3 may be refunded the amount along with interest @ 12% per annum. Respondent No. 3-Pawan Kumar is a member of the petitioner-Society having membership No. 55. The society allotted flat No. 2226 vide letter dated 14.02.2006 to respondent No. 3 and possession of the same was handed over to him on 05.03.2006. Vide letter dated 14.12.2005, the Society charged an amount of Rs. 38,664/- as interest @ 18% per annum in violation of directions issued by the Registrar Cooperative Societies. Vide letter dated 23.04.2004, all the cooperative house building societies have been directed to charge interest @ 12% per annum for the dues to be paid by the defaulting members. Apart from the interest amount, the Society also charged Rs. 13,62,897/- instead of Rs. 12,81,128/- vide letter dated 14.02.2006 as cost of the flat. The prayer was made for refund of the excess amount of cost and excess interest charged from respondent No. 3. The stand of the petitioner-Society before the authorities below was to the effect that respondent No. 3 had approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chandigarh for taking the same relief, the limitation for filing a civil suit is three years. Respondent No. 3 made all the payments three years prior to filing of reference and he was issued possession of the house on 05.03.2006. It was also pleaded by the petitioner-Society that reference was to be dismissed under Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C. It was pleaded by the petitioner-society that it had charged the amount in accordance with the instructions of the authorities. It was also pleaded by the petitioner that there was a representation to review the issue of delayed payments and it was decided by all the societies that interest should not be less than 22% per annum on delayed payments in view of the interest being charged by the Chandigarh Housing Board @ 20% per annum. In spite of that, the Society has charged interest @ 18% per annum on delayed payment, therefore, the petitioner-Society pleaded that no excess amount was charged from respondent No. 3. After considering the respective case of the parties, the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.T. Chandigarh passed the following order: "After hearing counsels for the respective parties and perusing the documents placed on record, I do agree with the contentions of counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 that amount of Rs. 12,81,128/- shown in the letter dated 14.2.2006 issued to the petitioner is a tentative price of the flat and may vary with the passage of time. With regard to charging of interest from the petitioner, I am of the considered view that the society should have charged interest @ 12% from the petitioner on the delayed payments as the order of Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.T. Chandigarh has never been challenged before any higher authority. In view of above, respondent-Society is directed to charge the interest from the petitioner @ 12% on the delayed payments and refund the excess amount taken from the petitioner within a month. No order as to costs."
(2.) Against that, the Society preferred an appeal which has been dismissed by the Secretary, Cooperation, Union Territory, Chandigarh vide impugned order dated 09.07.2013 and following order was passed: "Aggrieved by the said orders dated 07.01.2011 passed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Exercising the powers of Registrar), Cooperative Societies, Union Territory, Chandigarh, the petitioner has preferred an appeal. The case is fixed for hearing today. A number of times, the name of the appellant have been called to be present in the Court. However, till the rising of the court nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant. A number of opportunities were afforded to be heard earlier. Moreover, the appeal is badly time barred by more than 9 months. It appears that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the case. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed on merit and however the appeal is time barred by limitation."
(3.) I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.;