This judgement ranked 1 in the hitlist.

Brij Lal v. State of Punjab, (P&H) (DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 59364

1975(2) ILR (Punjab) 310 : 1973 PLJ 462 : 1973 RLR 456

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

(DB)

Before :- Prem Chand Pandit and Bhopinder Singh Dhillon, JJ.

Civil Writ No. 379 of 1973. D/d. 9.5.1973

Brij Lal - Petitioner

Versus
The State of Punjab, etc. - Respondents

For the Petitioner :- R.L. Sharma, Advocate.

For the State :- J.S. Wasu, Advocate-General, Punjab with S.K. Syal, Advocate.

For the Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 :- J.M. Sethi, Advocate.

Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, Sections 68(1) and 2(e) and 69 -
Revision of orders passed in appeals - Revisional power lies with the State Govt. -
Held, power specifically given to Registrar but exercised through his delegate is
revisionable by State Govt. only - Revisional powers with Registrar when orders
passed by authority subordinate to Registrar.

[Para 13]

JUDGMENT

Dhillon, J. - This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ petition Nos. 379, 431, 489, 797 and
957 of 1973. The petitioners in all these writ petitions approached the State Government in
revisional jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 69 of the Punjab Co-operative
Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It may be pointed out that the
powers of the State Government under Section 69 of the Act are not exercised by the
Minister of the Co-operative Department but the same are being exercised by a delegatee
either the Under-Secretary or the Deputy Secretary to Government, as the case may be. It
is the admitted case of the parties that in none of these cases, appeal against the award of
the Arbitrator lay to the State Government, Punjab, under Section 68 of the Act, but in fact
the appeals lay to the Registrar under Section 68(2)(c) of the Act, who has further
delegated its powers to his subordinate officers. The delegatee of the State Government
dismissed the revision petitions following the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this
Court reported in Nachhittar Singh v. The State of Punjab and others, 1973 P.L.J.
199, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court held that where an appeal lies either to
the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, or to the State Government under Section 68 of the
Act, no revisional jurisdiction can be exercised under the provisions of Section 69 of the Act.

2. Therefore, the only question which has to be considered in these cases is as to what is
the correct interpretation of Section 69 of the Act. It may be pointed out that Chapter XI of
the Act deals with appeals and revisions and consists of only three Section Nos. 68, 69 and
70. Section 68, Sub-section (1) provides that an appeal shall lie under this section against
various orders mentioned therein passed under the Act and the appealable orders are
specifically mentioned in clauses (a) to (k) of this Sub-section. Sub-section 2 of this section
provides as to before which authority the appeal against the orders made appealable under
Sub-section (1) of this section, shall lie. Sub-Section (3) of this section specifically provides
that no appeal shall lie under this section from any decision or order made by any authority
in appeal or in other words Sub-section (3) bars a second appeal from the orders made
appealable under Sub-section (1) of this section. Then comes Section 69 which deals with
the revisional powers, which is in the following terms :-
 "69 Revision.
The State Government and the Registrar may, suo moto 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 shall
appear 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. Section 70 of the Act deals with the powers of the Appellate or Revisional Authority for
passing interlocutory orders during the pendency of the appeal or revision, as the case may
be. In the present cases, we are only concerned with the interpretation of Section 69 of the
Act. As I have already pointed out, in Nachhittar Singh's case (supra), a learned Single
Judge of this Court interpreted Section 69 of the Act so as to mean that if an appeal against
an order lies under Section 68 of the Act, either to the Registrar or to the State
Government, in that case, there is no power of revision either with the State Government or
with the Registrar. The net result of this interpretation is that in all cases in which appeals
are provided under Sub-section (1) of Section 68 of the Act, no revision petition lies and the
order made in the first appeal becomes final. In my opinion, from the plain language of the
provisions of Section 69 of the Act, this interpretation is not possible. Section 69 clearly
vests the revisional power in the State Government where the order sought to be revised
passed under appeal has not been passed by the State Government or in other words,
where the order sought to be revised passed in appeal has been passed by the Registrar or
his delegatee, and the power of revision in cases where the appellate order is not passed by
the Registrar, but by an authority subordinate to him, not in the capacity of the delegatee
mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section 68 of the Act, would lie in the Registrar. I am
inclined to interpret Section 69 of the Act in this matter because if the intention of the
legislature in enacting Section 69 of the Act was to exclude the revisional jurisdiction in all
the cases where the appeal lies either to the Registrar or to the State Government, it was
quite sufficient that a mention would have been made in Section 69 of the Act that if an
appeal lies under Section 68 of the Act, no revision would lie. There was no necessity for the
Legislature to have enacted the words "any proceedings in which no appeal under Section
68 lies to the Government or the Registrar, as the case may be" in Section 69 of the Act.
Further more, the words "as the case may be "inserted after the words" "in which no appeal
under Section 68 lies to the State Government or the Registrar" and before the words "for
the purpose of satisfying itself or himself", make it clear that the State Government in
exercising the revisional powers cannot revise the appellate order as the same has been
passed by the State Government in exercising the revisional powers cannot revise the
appellate order as the same has been passed by the State Government under Section 68 of
the Act and in case where the appellate order sought to be revised has been passed by an
authority order sought to be revised has been passed by an authority subordinate to the
Registrar (not in the capacity of a delegatee of the Registrar) in that case the power of
revision will lie to the Registrar. The words "as the case may be" are sufficiently indicative of
the intention of the Legislature that the appellate authority will not exercise the revisional
power against its own orders passed in appeal, but an authority higher than the appellate
Authority is competent to exercise that revisional powers even in the case where the first
appeal has been provided under Sub-section (1) of Section 68 of that Act. To interpret this
Section otherwise, would mean ousting of the jurisdiction of the State Government or the
Registrar from entertaining the revision petition against all orders which are appealable
under Sub-section (1) of the Section 68 of the Act. This cannot be the intention of the
Legislature as I find that all important and material orders passed under the Act are made
appealable under Sub-section (1) of Section 68 of the Act, and if the section is interpreted
in the manner as interpreted in Nachhattar Singh's case (supra) in that case the revisional
jurisdiction will be completely ousted qua the orders passed in appeal under Section 68 of
the Act and orders passed in first appeal in all important matters will become final. For
instance, under clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 68 of the Act, an order of the
Registrar made under Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act refusing to register a Society,
has been made appealable. Similarly, under clause (b), an order of the Registrar made
under Sub-section (4) of Section 10 refusing to register an amendment of the bye-laws of a
co-operative society; under clause (bb) an order of the Registrar made under Section 10-A
directing amendment of bye-laws of a co-operative society; under clause (c) a decision of a
co-operative society, other than a producers' society, refusing to admit any person as a
member of the society who is otherwise duly qualified for membership under the bye-laws
of the society; under clause (d) a decision of a co-operative society expelling any of its
members; under clause (e) an order made by the Registrar removing or suspending a
committee member thereof under Section 27; under clause (f) an order made by the
Registrar under Section 57 apportioning the costs of an inquiry held under Section 50 or an
inspection made under Section 51; under clause (g) any order of surcharge under Section
54; under clause (h) any decision or award made under Section 56; under clause (i) an
order made by the Registrar under Section 57 directing the winding up of a co-operative
society; under clause (j) any order made by the Liquidator of a co-operative society in
exercise of the powers conferred on him by Section 59; and under clause (k) any order
made under Section 65 of the Act, are made appealable. If an interpretation is given that in
all these matters no revision petition would lie and the legislature only intended to provide
only one appeal against these orders and the orders passed in appeal will become final,
that, in my opinion, in addition to causing great hardship to the aggrieved persons, will be
against the very language of the provisions of Section 69 of the Act itself.

4. No doubt, if the interpretation as given in Nachhattar Singh's case (supra), is adopted,

Section 69 of the Act will not become wholly redundant as there are some other provisions
in the Act under which the orders, if passed, are not made appealable under Section 68 of
the Act and in these cases the revisional jurisdiction can be exercised but the fact remains
that all such provisions under which orders passed have not been made appealable, are not
so important and material in the working of the Act. The said provisions are Sections 13, 14,
21, 22, 45, 46 and 47 of the Act. Section 13 deals with the amalgamation, transfer of assets
and liabilities and division of co-operative societies. Section 14 deals with the cancellation of
registration certificates of co-operative societies in certain cases. Section 21 deals with the
transfer of interest on death of members; whereas Section 22 deals with the liability of past
member and estate of deceased member. Section 45 deals with the restrictions on loans.
Section 46 deals with the restrictions on borrowings and Section 47 deals with the
restrictions on other transactions with non-members of the Society. It would thus be seen
that all these sections, orders passed under which have not been made appealable, are not
so important as the provisions mentioned in clauses (a) to (k) of Sub-section (1) of Section
68 of the Act which have been made appealable. But if the interpretation to Section 69 of
the Act is given as I am inclined to interpret, it will give wider meaning to Section 69 of the
Act and not restricted meaning as given in Nachhattar Singh's case (supra) because in that
case revision petition will be competent against all orders passed under the Act, whether the
order sought to be revised is the appellate order or otherwise.

5. Mention may also be made to a decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in The
Halwara Co-operative Agricultural Service Society Ltd. Halwara v. The State of
Punjab and others, 1972 P.L.J. 461, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court took
the view that the remedy under Section 69 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act for
revision does not exist in case where the appeal lay to the Government or the Registrar. In
that case it was held by the learned Single Judge that since the appeal in that particular
case lay to the Deputy Registrar, therefore, the remedy of revision was open. That is the
case decided on its own facts and if that decision be taken to mean that in case an appeal
lies either to the Registrar or to the State Government, no revision petition lies, it may be
taken that I am taking a different view in the interpretation of Section 69 of the Act, which
view I have already expressed. The learned Advocate-General also supported the counsel
for the petitioners regarding the interpretation of Section 69 of the Act and contended that
Nachhattar Singh's case (supra) has been wrongly decided.

6. Having interpreted Section 69 of the Act so as to mean that if an appeal against an order
is preferred under Section 68 of the Act to the State Government, the State Government
will have no revisional power under Section 69 of the Act against the order passed in
appeal, and in case an order in appeal under Section 68 of the Act has been passed by the
Registrar, the Registrar has no power of revision against the order passed in appeal, the
only question which now falls for determination is whether regarding the orders impugned in
the present petitions, the revisional power would vest in the State Government or the
Registrar under the provisions of Section 69 of the Act. The awards in all the five writ
petitions have been passed by the Arbitrator admittedly under the provisions of Section
56(1)(c) of the Act. It is, therefore, the admitted case between the parties that the appeals
against these awards were filed under clause (e) of Sub-section (2) of Section 68 of the Act
and the same were disposed of by the person authorised by the Registrar in that behalf. It
may be pointed out that the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, which are in the following
terms, authorised the State Government by general or special order to confer on any person
appointed under Sub-section (2) all or any of the powers of the Registrar under this Act.

"3. Registration of Co-operative Societies.

1. The Government may appoint a person to be the Registrar of Co-operative
Societies for the State.
2. To assist the Registrar in his functions under this Act, the Government may
appoint such number of Additional Registrars, Joint Registrars, Deputy
Registrars, Assistant Registrars, and other persons with such designations as
it may think fit.
 3. The Government may, be general or special order, confer on any person
appointed under Sub-section (2) all or any of the powers of the Registrar
under this Act.
4. Every person appointed under Sub-section (2) shall exercise his powers
subject to the general superintendence and control of the Registrar".

7. Before coming into force the Punjab Co-operative Societies Amendment ordinance, 1969,
which ultimately was converted into Punjab Act No. 26 of 1969, amending the provisions of
Sections 68 and 69 of the Act, the State Government issued a notification dated 14th
August, 1969 published in the Punjab Government Gazette dated 22nd August, 1969,
conferring the powers of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies upon the officers mentioned
therein, which is in the following terms :-

"All Joint Registrars Co-

All the powers of Registrar exercisable
operative Societies, Punjab
under the aforesaid Act and Rules framed
and Deputy Registrars, Co-
thereunder from time to time.
operative Societies, Punjab.
The powers of Registrar exercisable under
Sections 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 25, 28(1)(b), 42,
All Assistant Registrars Co-
48, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 63(a),
operative Societies, Punjab.
65, 66, 67, 68, 82(2), 83 of the aforesaid
Act."

8. After the coming into force of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Amendment Ordinance,
1969 and the Amendment Act No. 26 of 1969, the State Government issued a notification
dated 19th November, 1969, which is now in force. The said notification superseded the
notification dated 14th August, 1969 and under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act, the
State Government conferred upon the following officers of the Co-operative Department
such powers of the Registrar, as indicated against each :-

"1. All Joint Registrars, All powers of the Registrar exercisable under the
Co-operative aforesaid Act and
Societies, Punjab.
2. All Deputy All powers of the Registrar exercisable under the
Registrars, Co- aforesaid Act and the Rules framed thereunder from
operative Societies, time to time except powers under Section 26(ID) and
Punjab. Sub-sections (1), (2), (3), (4), (6) and (7) of Section 27
in respect of Co-operative Sugar Mills, Co-operative
Consumers Stores, and Central Co-operative Banks."
"3. All Assistant Powers of the Registrar exercisable under Sections 8,
Registrars, Co- 9, 10, 11, 13, 25, 26(IA), 28, 42, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55,
operative Societies 56; 57, 58, 59, 61, clause (a) of and the proviso to
Punjab. Sections 63, 65, 66, 67, 73, 82 (2) and 83 of the
aforesaid Act and also powers of the Registrar under
Section 26(ID) and Sub-sections (1), (2), (3), (4), (6)
and (7) of Section 27 so far as they relate to Primary
Societies as defined in Section 15-A of the aforesaid
Act and rules 8, 10, 12, 15, 27, 38, 39, 43(1), 46, 47,
48, 49, 50, 51; 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62,
63, 65, 67, 68, 69 and 70 and rules 1(b), 1(d), 4 and 10
of Part I of Appendix 'C' of Punjab Co-operative
Societies Rules, 1963."

9. It would be clear from this notification, which is now in force, that the powers of the
Registrar to be exercised under clause (e) of Sub-section (2) of Section 68 of the Act having
not been delegated by the State Government under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act
to any officer under him, it has been left to the discretion of the Registrar either to decide
the appeals himself or to authorise any officer mentioned in sub-clause (e) of Sub-section
(2) of Section 68 of the Act, for deciding the appeals. In pursuance of this powers under
clause (e), the Registrar, - vide circular letter no. 29587-616, dated 9th June, 1971, which
is in the following terms, delegated its powers to the officer, who has appointed the person
concerned to adjudicate a particular dispute under Section 56(1)(c) of the Act.

"Please refer to provisions contained in Section 68 of the Punjab Co-operative

Societies Act, 1961. Clause (e) of Sub-section (2) of this Section at present at
present provides that when a decision or order was made by any person
 (other than Assistant Registrars/Deputy Registrars/ Joint Registrars etc.) the
appeal against that decision or order shall lie to the Registrar who may
authorise any Assistant Registrar, Deputy Registrar, Joint Registrar or
Additional Registrar, Deputy Registrar, Joint Registrar or Additional Registrar
to hear that appeal. At the moment all such appeals are filed before the
Registrar who has to authorise any Assistant Registrar/Deputy Registrar or
Joint Registrar etc. to hear the appeal by special orders so as to avoid delay
in disposal thereof. This increases work at Head Office level and also causes
inconvenience to the appellants who have to file each and every such appeal
before the Registrar in the first instance.
In order to remove this hardship it has been decided to issue general
authorisation for hearing appeals under clause (e) of Sub-section (2) of
Section 68 of the Act. In future the appeals in these cases shall lie to the
Officer who has appointed the person concerned to adjudicate a particular
matter. For instance, if an Arbitrator has been appointed by an Assistant
Registrar, the appeal against his Award shall lie to that Assistant Registrar
and in case he has been appointed by a Deputy Registrar, then the appeal
shall lie to the Deputy Registrar, so on and so forth. Appeals filed under
clauses (c) and (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 68 shall be heard by the
Assistant Registrar of the circle to which such cases relate."

10. It is the admitted case of both the parties that the powers of appeal exercised in all the
five writ petitions, which are being disposed of by us, were exercised by the delegates of the
Registrar in view of the circular letter No. 29587-616, dated 9th June, 1971. It is, therefore,
apparent that the appellate orders had been passed by the authorities as delegates of the
Registrar under clause (e) of Sub-section (2) of Section 68 of the Act. In this view of the
matter, in my opinion, the revision petitions would lie not to the Registrar but to the State
Government because under clause (e) of Sub-section (2) of Section 68 of the Act, the power
to dispose of the appeals, in the cases mentioned therein, can only be exercised by the
Registrar and the delegatee exercising the powers of the Registrar, will be deemed to be
acting as the Registrar as the powers under this clause can be exercised only by the
Registrar and if a particular decision is made by a delegatee exercising the powers which
are specifically provided under the Act to be exercised by the Registrar, the order of the
delegatee, in law, will be considered to be the order of the Registrar and the revision
petition in that case will lie to the State Government. I am fortified in this regard by an
authority of the Supreme Court in Roop Chand v. The State of Punjab and another,
1963 P.L.R. 577(576), wherein it was held that an order passed by the delegatee of the
State Government under the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the East Punjab
Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, will be deemed to be
an order of the State Government and in those cases no revision under Section 42 of the
said Act would lie to the State Government which authority had already exercised the
appellate powers though through a delegatee. It was held by their Lordships that it is the
statute which creates that power. The power can, therefore, be exercised in terms of the
statue and not otherwise. It was further held that it would, therefore, follow that an order
made in exercise of that power will be the order of the authority to which, that power was
given and no one else had the right to exercise that power. It was also held that no doubt
that power to delegate is given by the statute but the power given to the authority cannot
create an independent power in the officer. The same principle would apply to the present
case, and therefore, in my opinion, when a power, which has been specifically entrusted to
the Registrar under the provisions of clause (e), Sub-section (2) of Section 68 of the Act, is
exercised by a delegatee the said order of the delegatee, will be deemed to be the order of
the Registrar in the eyes of law and in those cases the revision would lie to the State
Government. Similar view was taken by a learned Single Judge of this Court in The
Ferozeshah Co-operative Agricultural Service Society Ltd. v. The Secretary to
Government, Punjab and others, C.R. No. 927 of 1969, decided on 6th November,
1969, by Gurdev Singh, J., (as he then was). In that case an order was passed by a
delegatee exercising the powers of the Registrar for winding up of a Co-operative Society. It
was held that an order passed by the delegatee in exercise of the powers conferred on the
Registrar, was deemed to be an order of the Registrar and appeal in those cases shall lie to
the State Government.

11. At this place a reference to a Division Bench decision on the Mysore High Court in The
Bhadra Ryots Co-operative Society Ltd. v. The State of My sore and another, 1971
Co-operative Law Journal, 87, may be made, on which reliance is being placed by the
learned Advocate-General for the State of Punjab, who propounds the view that an order
passed by the Assistant Registrar will be appealable to the Registrar even though the
Assistant Registrar exercised the powers of the Registrar under the substantive provisions of
the Act. In the present case, we are not concerned with the interpretation of the provisions
of clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Sub-section (2) of Section 68 of the Act, rather we are
only concerned with the interpretation of clause (e) of Sub-section (2) of Section 68 of the
Act, in which the power of deciding an appeal, if the decision or order was made by any
other person than the Registrar, is given to the Registrar or its delegatee. Therefore, it may
not be appropriate to consider the general question regarding the interpretation of clauses
(a), (b), (c) and (d) of Sub-section (2) of Section 68 of the Act, which will be appropriately
done in a proper case. As regards the interpretation of clause (e) of this section, I have no
doubt in my mind that an order passed by any person as a delegatee of the Registrar, is not
revisable by the Registrar himself, but it can only be revised by the State Government. The
authority reported in Bhadra Ryots Co-operative Society's Case (supra) is clearly
distinguishable as under the provisions of Section 106(2) of the Mysore Co-operative
Societies Act, 1959, which were being interpreted by the learned Judges of the Mysore High
Court, and which are in the following terms, the powers of hearing appeals by the Registrar
and his subordinates are couched in different language :-

"106(2). An appeal against any act, decision or order under Sub-section (1)
shall be made within sixty days from the date of the act, decision or order, -
(a) if the act, decision or order was made by the Registrar, to the State
Government;
(b) if the act, decision or order was made by any other officer, to that officer's
immediate superior officer."

12. It would be clear that there is no provision in that Act, which fell for interpretation,
analogous to clause (e) of Sub-section (2) of Section 68 of the Act. The clauses (a) and (b)
of Sub-section (2) of Section 106 of the Mysore Co-operative Societies Act are analogous to
clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Sub-section (2) of Section 68 of the Act. There is no clause
which is analogous to clause (e) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 68 of the Act, wherein
specifically the Registrar or his delegatee, has been given power to hear appeals against the
decisions or orders made by other persons. Moreover, with great respect to the learned
Judges of the Mysore High Court, I am not prepared to subscribe to this view for the simple
reason that this decision has not taken notice of the principles laid down by their Lordships
of the Supreme Court in Roop Chand's case (supra). The principle that where a power under
the statute has been given to a particular authority and though a power has also been given
to delegate the said power to any other person, the delegatee derives the power from the
statutory person, who alone can exercise the said power under the statute, was not taken
into consideration by the learned Judges of the Mysore High Court deciding that case.
Therefore, my conclusion is that where a power under the statute has been specifically
given to the Registrar alone and the same is exercised by a delegatee, the said order will be
revisable by the State Government and not by the Registrar even though the delegatee,
who exercised the power, was the Assistant Registrar or the Deputy Registrar or the Joint
Registrar or the Additional Registrar.

13. In all these cases the State Government, who has the jurisdiction to entertain the
revision petitions against the orders passed in appeal by a delegatee of the Registrar under
clause (e) of Sub-section (2) of Section 68 of the Act, has refused to exercise jurisdiction,
therefore, the orders of the State Government passed in revision petitions, dismissing the
same holding that it has got no jurisdiction to hear the revision petitions, are hereby
quashed. The cases are sent back to the State Government with the directions that the
State Government may dispose of the revision petitions on merits. However, keeping in
view the facts and circumstances of the cases, there will be no order as to costs.

Pandit, J. - Section 68(1) gives the various orders against which an appeal is competent.
Sub-section (2) of this section mentions the authorities before whom the appeal will lie.
Sub-section (3) lays down that there will be no second appeal from any decision taken or
order made on appeal by the authorities referred to in Sub-section (2). Section 69 deals
with the revisional powers of the State Government and the Registrar. They can be
exercised by both these authorities either suo motu or on the application of a party to a
reference. According to this section, before the revisional powers are made use of, either by
the State Government or the Registrar, the first question that will be determined will be if
an appeal lies under Section 68 against that particular decision or order. If the reply be in
the affirmative, then the person, who is desirous of invoking the revision powers, will be
directed to go and file an appeal against that decision or order to the authorities specified in
Section 68(2) of the Act. If no such appeal is competent, then the Registrar or the State
Government will exercise their revisional powers. If on appeal the decision has been taken
or the order has been passed by the Registrar or his delegate, then the revisional will lie to
the State Government. If, on the other hand, the order has been made by any of the
authorities subordinate to the Registrar, then in that case the Registrar will have the
revisional powers. This is the plain meaning of Section 69 of the Act.

With these observations, I agree with the order proposed by my learned brother.