BALIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16. 9. 1997 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition was dismissed. The appellant was at the relevant time a Pax Manager of Damdi Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Non-petitioner No. 3. Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies vide impugned order dated 19. 2. 1990, after holding the inquiry under Section 74 of the Act of 1965 against the petitioner-appellant directed recovery of Rs. 7,500/- with 18% interest w. e. f. 8. 7. 78 and imposed penalty of Rs. 50/ -. On appeal, Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur vide his order dated 22. 1. 94 set aside the order passed by the Assistant Registrar and remanded the case back to the Assistant Registrar to decide the case afresh. By order dated 22. 1. 94 the Additional Registrar held that the action taken against the petitioner-appellant by instituting an enquiry on 23. 12. 89 was barred by time under Section 74 of the Act of 1965 and no action could have been against the appellant, as the alleged omission attributed to the petitioner took place before eleven year of the institution of enquiry under Section 74. However, he directed the Deputy Registrar to find out whether any order of the State Govt. giving relaxation in period of limitation exist there or not and directed that if the sanction of the State Govt. has been received, the proceedings may be re- initiated and inquiry be conducted. This resulted in filing of SBCWP No. 4894/94 impugning both the orders passed by the Assistant Registrar as well as Additional Registrar, inter alia on the ground that the action initiated against the petitioner on 23. 12. 89 by the Assistant Registrar was barred by time and did not provide foundation for any valid order nor the Additional Registrar could have issued direction for reinstituting enquiry on relaxation in limitation by the State Government. The learned Single Judge held as under:- " the question as to whether the period of six years contemplated by Section 74 of the Act is over or not is the question if jurisdictional fact which is ascertained as a fact. It is specifically stated in the order passed by the Assistant Registrar that the offence was disclosed in an investigation camp conduction under Sec. 74 of the Act. Consequently, the question as to whether the period of limitation prescribed for offence commences from the date when the matter came to knowledge or from the date when it was actually committed will also have to be determined. In the circumstances, there is no reason why all of these issues should be prempted by taking up the proceedings here and now. There is no error ion the order of remand as is made. Learned Single judge further observed that the application is moved for sanctioning or permitting to raise all the disputes under Section 74 after the period of limitation is over. Even this aspect will have to be taken into consideration before adjudicating the question regarding commencement of proceedings the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise the question of limitation as prescribed by Section 74 of the Act before the Assistant Registrar shall decide the question of limitation first and then proceed. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed. " Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment passed by learned Single Judge, this appeal is before us.
(3.) THE contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that since admittedly facts with regard to proceeding under Section 74 that is to say that institution of enquiry on 23. 12. 89 was clearly barred under Section 74 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 as it was then existing. Subsequent amendment brought into Section 74 w. e. f. 27. 3. 91 being not retrospective in effect, the proceedings which have become barred before commencement of amending provision, could not have revived. He placed reliance on two decisions of this Court in DBCSP No. 1198/2000 decided on 12. 2. 2001 & SBCWP No. 2127/89 decided on 29. 6. 1999 wherein learned single Judge held that the second part of the proviso, which provides for limitation from the date of knowledge, was brought by the Amendment with effect from 27. 3. 1991 and that too without having any retrospective application did not apply retrospectively to resurrect the time barred claims which have so become barred by time before amendment. Thus, under the existing proviso the proceedings ought to have been initiated within the period of six years from the date of act or omission or the irregularity complained of. As the incident of irregularity in the present case was committed in 1971, the action initiated by the respondents in 1989 was without jurisdiction being time barred. He also relied on the decision in Rajendra Kumar vs. State of Raj. DBCSA No. 1198/2000 decided on 12. 2. 2001 holding the proviso to Section 74 (1) to be very clear. Under the proviso, no inquiry can be initiated after the expiry of six years from the date of indicated omission or commission by the concerned person. That decision of learned single judge referred to above is the correct view of the matter. The undisputed position here is that if the extant position was continuing, be as if no amendment was brought in to proviso to Section 74, the initiation of proceedings on 23. 12. 89 was barred by time and could not have been validly instituted on that date. The proviso to Section 74 (1) read at the time the Assistant Registrar proposed to exercise jurisdiction under Section 74 as under: " Provided that no such enquiry shall be held after the expiry of 6 years from the date of acts or omissions referred to in this section. " ;