Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the legality and validity of the order Annexure P -9 dated 28.10.1998 passed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur in proceedings under Section 74(2) of the Cooperative Societies Act whereby the petitioner was directed to pay interest @ 15% on the belated recovery of the dues of Cooperative Society as well as the order Annexure -13 dated 18.4.2001 passed by the Addl. Registrar (Appeals) Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur, whereby the order passed by the Joint Registrar was upheld.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the excess grain was given to the traders in a bonafide manner because of the prevalent practice. He contends that there are many instances wherein the traders were given wheat lesser than what was billed and thus the Society had the occasion to retain the excess amount from the traders. Thus, he submits that if a balanced approach is taken it would be apparent that whatever delay occasioned in recovering the amount from the traders can be attributed to the general procedure of trading adopted by the Cooperative Societies. He submits that as the petitioner got recovered an amount of Rs. 202612.27/ - from the traders and deposited the same back in the Society, the imposition of interest upon the petitioner is absolutely unwarranted. He, therefore, prays that the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside as being grossly illegal and arbitrary. Per contra Mr. Dave, learned counsel representing the respondent Society submits that the petitioner, during the proceedings under Section 74 of the Cooperative Societies Act admitted that he was not authorized to give goods on credit to the traders. The petitioner also admitted that the liability to effect recovery was upon him and accordingly, for the delayed recovery of the amount owed to the Society, the petitioner is liable to pay interest as well. He contends that the petitioner's own admission, which is reflected in the application Annexure -5 dated 8.7.1998 is sufficient to uphold the validity and legality of the orders under challenge.
(3.) HEARD and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the material available on record.;