Harbans Lal, J. - (1.) IN this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the legality and validity of the order passed by Deputy Secretary to Government, Cooperation Department, Punjab dated 29th January, 1973 (Annexure D) has been challenged. An award (Annexure A) was made by the Arbitrator (respondent No. 3) on 21st December, 1970 against the present petitioner. Against this, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Assistant Registrar, Co -operative Societies, Garhshankar, at Hoshiarpur which was decided by the order of the Assistant Registrar, dated 13th May, 1971 (Copy Annexure B) by which the award was modified and the appeal was allowed parity. The petitioner challenged the appellate order in revision under Section 69 of the Punjab Co -operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be called the Act) before the Deputy Secretary to Government, Punjab (Cooperation Department) exercising powers of the Government under She Act. This revision was dismissed on 29th January, 1973 by the impugned order (Annexure D) and it was held that the revision under Section 69 of the Act was not competent. The Deputy Secretary to Government Punjab (Co -operation Department) based its decision on the judgment of this Court as reported in Nachhattar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1973 P.L.J. 199. According to the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, this decision was over -ruled by a Division Bench of this Court in Brij Lal v. State of Punjab, (1973) 75 P.L.R. 17 (S.N.), and it was held that revision under Section 69 of the Act was competent and maintainable.
(2.) THE Learned Counsel for the State has nothing to say on merits. However, a preliminary objection has been raised that the present is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution which is not maintainable according to the amendment of Article 227 by section 40 of the Constitution (Forty -Second Amendment) Act, 1976. Reliance has been placed on Sub -clause (5) to Article 227 which is to the following effect: - - Nothing in this article shall be construed as giving to a High Court any jurisdiction to question any judgment of any inferior court which is not otherwise subject to appeal or revision. This is not disputed by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that such a petition will not be competent under the amended Article 227 after the enforcement of the amended Constitution but it has been stressed that Sub -Clause (5) to Article 227, has not been amended with retrospective effect and consequently, the objection has no effect on the petitions which were filed before coming into effect of the amended Constitution and that the present petition has to be decided under the unamended Article 227. This contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner has a substance. Whereas it has been provided under Section 58 of the above mentioned amending Act that writ petitions under Article 225 will be disposed of in accordance with the procedure provided therein but the amending Act is absolutely silent about the retrospective operation of sub -clause (5) to Article 227. As such, retrospective effect can not be given to this provision and the present petition cannot be dismissed on the ground that it is not maintainable under the amended Constitution. For the reasons mentioned above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order by the Deputy Secretary to Government, Punjab (Cooperation Department) dated 29th January, 1973 (Annexure D) is quashed and it is directed that respondent No. 1 will decide the revision petition filed by the petitioner on merits. The petitioner is directed through his counsel to appear before respondent No. 1 on 27th of June, 1977. There will be no order as to costs.;