LexYOGENDRA PRASAD versus ADDL. REGISTRAR, CO-OP. SOCIETIES, BIHAR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
--+ ' YOGENDRA PRASAD v. ADDL. REGISTRAR, CO-OP. SOCIETIES, BIHAR AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 17, 1991 [M. M. PUNCHHI AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] Bihar and Orissa Coop~rative Societies Act, 1935--Sections 48 (6), 56 - Legislative intention-Revisionary powers of Registrar--Constrnction, nature and ambit of. Bihar and Orissa Cooperative Societies Act, 1935-Sections 40, 48 - Initiation of proceeding u/s. 40 prior to proceeding u/s. 48--4¥/zether amounts to. double jeopardy. A B c Bihar and Orissa Cooperative Societies Act, 1935 --Sections 2(1), D 2( a), 6,26,56-"Registrar''--Constrnction-Whether assistants of Registrar eligible to exercise powers of Registrar. The appellant, an Ex-Treasurer of a Co-operative Society was said to have defalcated a sum of Rs. 95,790.54 and for recovery thereof, proceedings were initiated under section 48 of the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act; 1935 with interest accrued thereon of Rs. 25,555 as on December 30, 1976. The Registrar referred the matter to the Asstt. Registrar who on enquiry and having given the opportunity to the appellant passed an E award, against which appeal was filed. F The Deputy Registrar allowed 'he appeal on the ground that the appellant was surcha1-ged. On revision, the first respondent set aside the appellate order and confirmed the award with a further direction to pay interest till date of G recovery . .A Tht: appellant filed a writ petition which was.dismissed in limine by the High Court against which this appeal by special leave. The ·appellant contended that the Registrar had no revisional H . - - 143 144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991) SUPP. 1 S. C.R. A . jurisdiction under Section 56 since the award of the Asstt. Registrar was by the Registrar under the Act acting as Registrar's delegate; that surcharge proceedings against the appellant were initiated under Section 40 in which the appellant was found payable of partial amount, as against which, the society filed an appeal before the Govemment, which was B pending and the award amounted to double jeopardy for the same liability and therefore, it was illegal. Dismissing the appeal, this Court, HELD: 1. A bare reading of the relevant provisions in Section 48 C clearly manifests the legislative intention that the Registrar on reference , himself may decide the dispute or transfer it for disposal to a person exercising powers of the Registrar in this behalf. If the Registrar himself decides the dispute under Section 48(3) the question of either appeal or revision to him does not arise except a review. This dichotomy is to be D maintained when a revisional power is to be exercised by the Registrar. E The power of revision is conferred expressly only, either on application or srw moto, against any order passed by "a person .exercising the powers of the Registrar". ·obviously it refers to the person appointed to assist hi~ under s. 6(2) (a) of the Act. [148G-H, 149 A] 2. The Registrar under s. 6(1) of the Act has his pre-eminent supervisory authority over the function and orders of the Registrars appointed under s. 6(2)(a) to assist him in the discharge of the duties or functions under the Act except over his delegate under sub-section (4) of s. 6. His su~rvisory or revisional power is to correct all palpable material F errors in the orders passed or the action taken by the subordinate officers feeding injustice. Merely because the Asstt. Registrar on reference exercised the powers under sub-section (3) of s. 48. The Registrar is not denuded of his supervisory or revisional powers under s. 56 of the Act. Therefore, the Addi. Registrar as delegate of the Registrar is clearly within G his power to exercise his revisional power over the appellate order under S. 48(6) of the Act. It is accordingly legal and valid. (149 E-GJ 3. The language in s. 56 was couched very widely without being hedged with any limitation like the revisional powers under s. 115 C.P.C. or the similar language used in sister Acts in some other States. The H reason appears to be obvious. The order of the Dy. Registrar by language Y. PRASAD v. CO-OP. SOCIEilES 145 ot sub-section (6) of s. 48, undoubtedly shall be final. When the legislature A gives "finality" to an order, it is nonnally not open to revision. But still it must be construed in the light of the scheme of the Act, its operation and resultant effect. The language in s. 56 is not hedged with any limitation of t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.