http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7

PETITIONER:

YOGENDRA PRASAD

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

ADDL. REGISTRAR, CO-OP. SOCIETIES, BIHAR AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT17/09/1991

BENCH:

PUNCHHI, M.M.

BENCH:

PUNCHHI, M.M.

RAMASWAMY, K.

CITATION:

1991 AIR 2137 1991 SCR Supl. (1) 143

1992 SCC Supl. (1) 720

ACT:

Bihar and Orissa Cooperative Societies Act, 1935--Sec-

tions 48 (6), 56 - Legislative intention--Revisionary powers

of Registrar--Construction, nature and ambit of.

Bihar and Orissa Cooperative Societies Act, 1935--Sec-

tions 40, 48--Initiation of proceeding u/s. 40 prior to

proceeding u/s. 48--Whether amounts to double jeopardy.

Bihar and Orissa Cooperative Societies Act, 1935--Sec-

tions 2(1),2(a),6,26,56--"Registrar"--Construction---Whether

assistants of Registrar eligible to exercise powers of

Registrar.

HEADNOTE:

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. 25,55 as on December

30, 1976.

The Registrar referred the matter to the Asstt. Regis-

trar who on enquiry and having given the opportunity to the

appellant passed an award, against which appeal was filed.

The Deputy Registrar allowed the appeal on the ground

that the appellant was surcharged.

On revision, the first respondent set aside the appel-

late order and confirmed the award with a further direction

to pay interest till date of recovery.

The 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 revi-

sional

144

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 Government,

which was pending and the award amounted to double jeopardy

for the same liability and therefore, it was illegal.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7

HELD: 1. A bare reading of the relevant provisions in

Section 48 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 maintained when a revisional

power is to be exercised by the Registrar. The power of

revision is conferred expressly only, either on application

or suo moto, against any order passed by "a person exercis-

ing the powers of the Registrar". Obviously it refers to the

person appointed to assist him 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

supervisory or revisional power is to correct all palpable

material 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 Addl. Registrar as delegate of the Registrar

is clearly within 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-G]

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 reason appears to be obvious.

The order of the Dy. Registrar by language

145

of sub-section (6) ors. 48, undoubtedly shall be final. When

the legislature gives 'finality' to an order, it is normally

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 limita-

tion of the finality in sub-section (6) of Section 48. The

revisional power under section 56 is independent of the

appellate powers under section 48(6). The latter is amenable

to revision by the Registrar. [150 D-F]

4. The proceedings under s. 40 are not in substitution

of s. 48, but are independent of and in addition to the

normal civil remedy under s. 48. The culpable negligence,

misconduct, misappropriation, fraudulent conduct etc. are

relevant facts to be established in the proceedings under

section 40. But that is not so under section 48. Therefore,

mere initiation or an order passed under s. 40 does not

divest the jurisdiction or power of the Registrar under s.

48 when it was referred to for a decision of the dispute.

Exercise of the jurisdiction to pass an award under s. 48(3)

or revision under s. 56 does not amount to double jeopardy.

[151 C-D]

5. Section 2(i) of the Act defines "Registrar", which

means a person appointed to perform the duties of Registrar

or Co-operative Societies under this Act. The State Govern-

ment may appoint a person to be the Registrar of the Co-

operative Societies besides Additional Registrar and also

appoint persons to assist such Registrar. Under sub-section

2(a) the persons appointed to assist the Registrar are

entitled to exercise all or any of the powers of the Regis-

trar under the Act except under s. 26. Sub-section (4) of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7

Section 6 gives power to the Registrar to delegate, transfer

or assign to the Addl. Registrar all the powers including

the powers under s. 26 and 56 and thereupon the Addl. Regis-

trar as a delegate of the Registrar is empowered to exercise

powers so transferred or assigned or delegated to him.

Section 6 thereby makes a clear distinction between the

exercise of the powers of the Registrar, by the Addl. Regis-

trar as a delegate of the Registrar and of the Asstt.

Registrars or Dy. Registrars appointed to assist the Regis-

trar empowered as such in the discharge of their functions

under the Act. Such assistants are entitled by statutory

operation to exercise the powers under the Act conferred by

the State Govt. except to the extent expressly excluded by

the statute. [147 B, 148 A-B]

Din Dayal Singh v. The Bihar State Cooperative Marketing

Union Ltd.,

146

AIR 1976 Patna 179, over-ruled

Chintapalli Agency Taluk Arrack Sales Co-op. Society

Ltd. v. Secretary (Food & Agricultural), Govt. of Andhra

Pradesh, [1978] 1 SCR 563, followed.

Roop Chand v. State of Punjab, [1963] Suppl. 1 SCR 539,

distinguished.

JUDGMENT:

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.2168 of

1980.

From the Judgment and Order dated 2.8.1979 of the Patna

High Court in C.W.J.C. No.1819 of 1979.

R.K. Khanna and R.P. Singh for the Appellant.

L.C. Goyal for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

K. RAMASWAMY, J. The appellant, the Ex-Treasurer of the

Gopalganj Co-op. Development & Cane Marketing Union, Gopal-

ganj, was said to have defalcated a sum of Rs. 95,790.54 and

for recovery thereof, proceedings were initiated under s. 48

of the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, VI of

1935, for short 'the Act' with interest accrued thereon of

Rs. 25,555 as on December 30, 1976. The Registrar referred

the matter to the Asstt. Registrar, Gopalganj, who on en-

quiry and having given the opportunity to the appellant

passed an award in Case No. 400 of 1975 on December 30, 1976

for the aforesaid sums. On appeal, the Deputy Registrar set

aside the award on the ground that the appellant was surch-

arged in Surcharge Case No. 18 of 1976. On further revision,

the first respondent set aside the appellate order and

confirmed the award with a further direction to pay interest

till date of recovery. The appellant filed C.W.J.C. No. 1819

of 1979 which was dismissed in limine by the Patna High

Court on August 2, 1979. Thus this appeal by Special Leave.

The learned counsel for the appellant raised two- fold

contentions. His first contention is that the Registrar has

no revisional jurisdiction under s. 56 since the award of

the Asstt. Registrar is by the Registrar under the Act and

the Asstt. Registrar acted as his delegate. In support

thereof he placed strong reliance on Din Dayal Singh v. The

Bihar State Cooperative Marketing Union Ltd, AIR 1976 Patna

179. It is further contended that surcharge proceedings

against the appellant were initiated under s. 40 in

147

which the appellant was found payable of partial amount as

against which the society filed an appeal before the Govern-

ment which is pending. The award amounts to double jeopardy

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7

for the same liability. Therefore, it is illegal. We find no

substance in either contention.

Section 2 (i) of the Act defines 'Registrar', which

means a person appointed to perform the duties of Registrar

of Co-operative Societies under this Act. Section 6 in

Chapter II provides thus:

"6. The Registrar-- (1) The State Government

may appoint a person to be registrar of Co-

operative Societies for the State or any

portion of it, and may appoint persons to

assist such Registrar.

(2) The State Government may, by general or

special order published in the Official Ga-

zette, confer -

(a) on any person appointed under sub- section

(1), to assist the Registrar, all or any of

the powers of the Registrar under this Act

except the powers under Section 26; and

(b) on any Co-operative Federation or financ-

ing bank all or any of the powers of the

Registrar under Section 20, sub-section (3) of

Section 28 and Section 33.

(3) Where the State Government is of opinion

that the Registrar needs the assistance of

Additional Registrar for speedy disposal of

business, it may by order published in the

Official Gazette, appoint such number of

Additional Registrar as it may deem fit.

(4) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary

contained in any other provision of the Act,

the Registrar may delegate, transfer or assign

to the Additional Registrar such of his powers

and functions and duties as he may consider

necessary including the power under sections

26 and 56 and the Additional Registrar shall,

thereupon have powers of Registrar in matters

so delegated, transferred or assigned to him."

From a reading of sub-sections (1) to (3) of s. 6, it is

clear that the State Government may appoint a person to be

the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies besides Addition-

al Registrar and also appoint persons to assist such Regis-

trar. Under sub-section 2 (a) the persons appointed to

148

assist the Registrar are entitled to exercise all or any of

the powers of the Registrar under the Act except under s.

26. Sub-section (4) gives power to the Registrar to dele-

gate, transfer or assign to the Addl. Registrar all the

powers including the power under ss. 26 and 56 and thereupon

the Addl. Registrar as a delegate of the Registrar is empow-

ered to exercise powers so transferred or assigned or dele-

gated to him. Section 6 thereby makes a clear distinction

between the. exercise of the powers of the Registrar, by the

Addl. Registrars as a delegate of the Registrar and of the

Assn. Registrars or Dy. Registrars appointed to assist the

Registrar empowered as such in the discharge of their func-

tions under the Act. Such assistants are entitled by statu-

tory operation to exercise the powers under the Act con-

ferred by the State Govt. except to the extent expressly

excluded by the statute.

Section 48 provides procedure to adjudicate any dispute

touching the business of a registered Society other than a

dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by the Society

or its Managing Committee against a paid servant of the

society, arising amongst its members covered by clauses (a)

to (e) and (c) covering any officer, agent or servant of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7

society (past or present). Such disputes shall be referred

to the Registrar. Under sub-section (2) thereof the Regis-

trar may on receipt of such reference (a) decides the dis-

pute by himself or (b) transfer for disposal to "any person

exercising the powers of the Registrar in this behalf'...

Under sub-section (3) the Registrar (Assistant or Deputy) on

reference shall dispose of the same in th manner provided

and the rules. A right of appeal under s.48 (6) is provided

against the award made under sub-section (3). Sub-section

(9) provides the subject to the orders of the Registrar on

appeal or review a decision given in a dispute transferred

or referred under clauses (b) and (c) shall be final. Sec-

tion 56 provides power of revision thus:

Power of revision by Registrar - The Registrar

may on application or of his own motion revise

any order passed by a person exercising the

powers of a Registrar or by a liquidator under

s. 44"

A bare reading of these relevant provisions 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 s. 48(3) the question of either appeal or revision to

him does not arise except a review. This dichotomy is to be

maintained when a revisional power is to be exercised by the

Registrar. The power of the revision is conferred expressly

only, either on application or suo moto, against any

149

order passed by "a person exercising the powers of the

Registrar". Obviously it refers to the person appointed to

assist him under s. 6(2)(a) of the Act.

In Chintapalli Agency Taluk Arrack Sales Co-op. Society

Ltd. v. Society (Food & Agriculture), Govt. of Andhra

Pradesh, [1978] 1 S C R 563 a similar question had arisen.

The Dy. Registrar of Co-operative Societies gave notice to

the appellant and amended under s. 16 (5) of the A.P. Co-

operative Societies Act, the Bye-laws of the Society so as

to restrict the area of operation within the specified area.

On a revision filed against the order under s. 77, the

Registrar gave certain directions which was assailed being

without jurisdiction. When it came before the High Court,

the High Court allowed the writ petition. On appeal this

court held that the power of the Registrar is in accordance

with the pre-eminent position accorded by the Act to the

Registrar under whose supervision any other person appointed

under s.3 (1) may function and act. "It is, therefore, not

correct that the Registrar could not exercise powers under

s. 77 in examining the correctness, legality or propriety of

the proceedings initiated by the Dy. Registrar under s.

16(5) of the Act". It was further held that the power under

s.16 is that of the Registrar, but the Dy. Registrar is

empowered by the Government to exercise the powers, but

under the general superintendence of the Registrar. Accord-

ingly it was held that the revision was maintainable. The

same ratio applies to the facts on hand. The Registrar under

s. 6 (1) of the Act has his pre-eminent supervisory authori-

ty over the functions 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 supervisory or revisional

power is to correct all palpable material errors in the

orders passed or the action taken by the subordinate offi-

cers feeding injustice. The language couched in s. 56 advis-

edly was wide of the mark to reach injustice whenever found

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7

in the orders or actions of his subordinate officers. Merely

because the Asstt. Registrar on reference exercised the

power under sub-s. (3) of s.48, the Registrar is not denuded

of his supervisory or revisional powers under s. 56 of the

Act. Therefore, the Addl. Registrar as delegate of the

Registrar is clearly within his power to exercise his revi-

sional power over the appellate order under s. 48 (6) of the

Act. It is accordingly legal and valid. The ratio in Roop

Chand v. State of Punjab, [1963] Suppl. 1 SCR 539 is clearly

distinguishable. Therein the State Govt. have expressly

delegated their power to the Asstt. Director. Thereby the

Subordinate Officer exercised the powers of the State Govt.

as their delegate. The Govt. was thereafter devoid of powers

to exercise the revisional powers over the subordinate

officers. This court in Chintapalli Agency's case (supra)

distinguished Roop

150

Chand's ratio. Din Dayal Singh's case (supra) no doubt

supports the contention of the appellant. Relying upon the

language in sub-section (9) of s. 48 "save as expressly

provided in this section ", the Division Bench construed

that the appellate order of the Deputy Registrar passed

under s. 48 (6) was otherwise provided and so was not amena-

ble to revision under s. 56. The learned Judges construed

that since the appellate order shall be final. The effect of

language under sub-sec. (9) of s. 48 was to exclude the

revisional jurisdiction of the Registrar under s. 36. In

addition, the Division Bench also construed that the Regis-

trar himself referred the dispute to the Asstt. Registrar

and any person exercising the power of the Registrar in this

behalf is to be in the parameters of his delegate and that,

therefore, the Registrar himself cannot revise his own order

under s. 56. We find it difficult to approve the ratio of

the High Court. At the cost of repetition we point out that

s. 6, sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (a) make a distinc-

tion between "the Registrar" and "a person exercising the

powers of the Registrar". Sub-section (4) further amplifies

the exercise of the power of the Registrar by the Additional

Registrar as his delegate. That apart, it is clear that the

Registrar is the final supervisory authority over the subor-

dinate officers exercising the powers or performing the

duties under the Act. 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 like A.P.

The reason appears to be obvious. The order of the Dy.

Registrar by language of sub-section (6) of s. 48, undoubt-

edly shall be final. We are aware that when the legislature

gives "finality" to an order, it is normally not open to

revision. But still in 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 the

finality in sub-section (6) of s. 48. Thus we hold that the

revisional power under s. 56 is independent of the appellate

power under section 48(6). The letter is amenable to revi-

sion by the Registrar. The ratio of the Division Bench in

Din Dayal's case (supra) is, therefore, not good law.

The second contention that the award of the Asstt.

Registrar amounts to double jeopardy offending his right

under Art. 20 is misconceived and without substance. Un-

doubtedly s. 40 gives power to the Registrar to initiate

surcharge proceedings, on receipt of audit report under s.

33 or an enquiry under s. 35 or on inspection under Ss. 34,

36 or 37 or of the winding up proceedings, if it appears to

the Registrar that any person who has taken part in the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7

organisation or the management of the society or any past or

present officers of the society made any illegal payment

under clause (a); or by reason of his culpable negligence or

mis-

151

conduct causes loss or deficiency to the funds of the socie-

ty under clause (b); or failed to bring into account any

sums which ought to have been brought into the account under

clause (d); or misappropriated or fraudulently retained any

property of the society or of the financing bank etc. The

proceedings under s. ,18 are in the nature of a civil suit,

otherwise cognisable by a civil court under s. 9 of the

C.P.C. The statute has taken out the jurisdication of the

civil court and expressly conferred on the Registrar or a

person exercising the powers of the Registrar to decide the

dispute touching the business or management of the society

between its members, past members etc. or their office

bearers, agent or officers or servants of the society etc.

The proceedings under s. 40 are not in substitution of s.

48, but are independent of and in addition to the normal

civil remedy under s. ,18. The culpable negligence, miscon-

duct, misappropriation, fraudulent conduct etc. are relevant

facts to be established in the proceedings under s. 40. But

that is not so under s. 48. Therefore, mere initiation or an

order passed under s. 40 does not divest the jurisdiction or

power of the Registrar under s. 48 when it was referred to

for a decision of the dispute. Exercise of the jurisdiction

to pass an award under s. ,18(3) or revision under s.-56

does not amount to double jeopardy. We are informed that an

appeal before the Government is pending against surcharge

order under s. 40. We express no opinion thereon. We hold

that exercise of the power to pass an award under s. 48 does

not amount to double jeopardy. The appellate order of the

Dy. Registrar is obviously and palpably illegal and rightly

corrected. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, but since

none appeared for the respondents we order no costs.

V.P.R Appeal dismissed.

152