I.S.Tiwana, J. - (1.) The petitioner-Society impugns the order of the Deputy Secretary to Government, Punjab, Co-operation Department, dated November 20, 1978 (Annexure P. 4), purported to have been passed under Section 69 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (for short, the Act), on the short ground that the same is totally without jurisdiction. The backdrop of the case is as follows.
(2.) Vide order dated September 16, 1978, the Assistant Registrar exercising the powers of the Registrar under Section 13 sub-section (8) of the Act, amalgamated the Co-operative Societies of villages Kheri Jattan and Lohar Majra with that of village Dhadhogal. This order of the Registrar was impugned by the Society of village Kheri Jattan before the Deputy Secretary and the latter vide his impugned order directed that the Society of village Kheri Jattan should be amalgamated with that of village Issra instead of village Dhadhogal. It is this order of the Deputy Secretary which is impugned in this petition and, as already indicated, on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction inasmuch as no revision petition was competent before the Deputy Secretary under Section 69 of the Act. In order to appreciate the contention, a reference to the language of Section 69 of the Act is a prefatory necessity and it reads as follows : "69. Revision. 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."
(3.) The argument of the petitioner's counsel is that only a party to the reference could approach the Government, i. e., the Deputy Secretary being the delegate of the Government in the instant case and since the order of the Registrar amalgamating the three Societies was not passed as a result of any reference, the former could not exercise any jurisdiction under this section at the instance of the Kheri Jattan Co-operative Society. Besides this it is also contended by the learned counsel that in view of the provision of sub-section (12) of Section 13 and sub-section (1-A) of Section 14, neither the Co-operative Society of village Kheri Jattan had any legal entity or was in existence after the passing of the order by the Registrar on September 15, 1978 nor could the Deputy Secretary look into the legality or validity of that order on account of the finality attached to the same by law. As against this, the stand of the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 is that since the Deputy Secretary was entitled to interfere in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction suo motu, therefore, even if in the instant case he had been moved by an individual or this respondent as a petitioner, his order cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. He also seeks to maintain in the light of Brij Lal v. The State of Punjab and others, [1973 PLJ 462], that this respondent had a right to maintain the revision petition before the Deputy Secretary. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, I find force in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner and for the same very reasons, the stand of the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 deserves to be repelled.;