Iqbal Singh Tiwana, J. - (1.) Through this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges the validity of the award made against him by an Arbitrator under Sec. 56 of the Punjab Co -operative Societies Act, 1961, as applicable to Haryana and its affirmance in appeal and revision.
(2.) The Arbitrator awarded Rs. 14603/ - in all including interest and the costs against the Petitioner and in favour of the Bhiwani Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. In appeal the Assistant Registrar exercising the powers of the Registrar, reduced the liability of the Petitioner. Still not satisfied, he challenged the appellate order before the Deputy Secretary to the Government in revision who dismissed the same with no order as to costs.
(3.) The primary contentions of the Petitioner before these authorities as well as before us are that there was no valid reference before the Registrar when he chose to refer the matter for arbitration and that he has not been afforded a proper opportunity by the Arbitrator or the higher authorities to plead his case. The counsel contends that on the year 1967 when the Petitioner is alleged to have taken the amounts in question from the Bank, he was acting as its Managing Director and if any dispute with regard to his liability was to be raised against him, then the only provision of law under which he could be proceeded against was Sec. 54 of the Act and not Sec. 55 there of. The counsel points out that under Sec. 54, the matter could not be referred for arbitration by the Registrar as had been done in the present case. He further points out that under Sec. 54 only the Deputy Registrar or the Registrar could look into the matter. He maintains that Sec. 54 being the specific or the special provision of law under which action can be taken against a person who has been managing the affairs of the Society, the authorities could not resort to the general law or Sec. 55 of the Act and thus could not refer the matter to an Arbitrator who was none else than an Inspector of the Co -operative Department. This argument of the learned Counsel, to my mind does not hold any weight. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Pentakota Sriramulu v/s. Co operative Marketing Society Ltd., Anakapalli and Anr. : A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 621, while interpreting Ss. 49 and 51 of the Madras Co -operative Societies Act, 1932, which provisions are almost analogous to Ss. 54 and 55 respectively of the Punjab Co -operative Societies Act, held as under: Where a claim is one "against a person in management of the Society" and "for the fraudulent retention of money or other property of the Society" the case does not completely fall under Sec. 49 and consequently the order of Registrar proceeding under Sec. 51 is not open to objection. Besides these two essential requisites the facts giving rise to the charge have to be. disclosed in the course of an audit under Sec. 37 or an enquiry under Sec. 38 or an inspection under Sec. 39 or on the winding up of the Society. Unless this condition is also satisfied Sec. 49 would not be attracted. This position of law has also been so accepted by us in Civil Writ Petition No. 2758 of 1978 Sucha Singh v/s. State of Punjab decided on August 2, 1979.;