Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurcharan Kaur And Another vs Registrar, Cooperative ... on 1 August, 2023
2023:PHHC:098225
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-925-2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision:- 1.8.2023
Gurcharan Kaur and another ...Petitioners
Versus
Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
Present: Mr. Tahaf Bains, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Imran A.Ali, Advocate for
Mr. PIP Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 3.
*****
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.
1. The petitioners - Gurcharan Kaur and Gawinder Pal Kaur who are widow
and daughter of deceased Mohinder Singh respectively, assail order dated
11.11.2016 (Annexure P-5) passed by Additional Registrar (Credit),
Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh on a petition filed under
provisions of Sections 55/56 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for recovery of an amount of Rs.
1,11,94,494/- alongwith interest, by Punjab State Cooperative Supply and
Marketing Federation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'MARKFED'), a State
Government Public Sector Undertaking.
KAMAL KUMAR
2023.08.01 18:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
CWP-18391-2018 (O&M) 2 2023:PHHC:098225
2. Vide said order dated 11.11.2016 (Annexure P-5), Mohinder Singh i.e.
husband of petitioner no. 1 - Gurcharan Kaur and father of petitioner no. 2 -
Gawinder Pal Kaur alongwith one Balwinder Singh have been held liable to
deposit an amount of Rs. 1,11,94,494/-, being the loss caused to the Markfed
during the period when Mohinder Singh and Balwinder Singh Puri were
allegedly custodian of stock of wheat w.e.f. 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-
2001. Although, Mohinder Singh, through his Legal Representatives, i.e.
through the petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 68 of the Act, but
the same came to be dismissed vide order dated 7.8.2018 (Annexure P-24)
passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh.
3. The short point involved in the present case is as to whether the proceedings
initiated by Markfed (respondent No. 1) under provisions of Section 55/56
of the Act for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,11,94,494/- were initiated
within limitation or not. The wheat stocks in question pertained to the crop
year 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 which was found to be damaged.
While Mohinder Singh had expired on 9.12.2010, the recovery proceedings
under Sections 55 and 56 of the Act were initiated in the year 2014 against
his Legal Representatives after his death. In other words, the proceedings
were initiated after about a decade of the alleged loss to Markfed.
Although, under the Act, no specific limitation is prescribed with respect of
any petition filed under Section 55 of the Act but it has consistently been
held by this Court that the limitation would be three years in respect of the
petitions under Section 55 of the Act for recovery of the damages etc. The
particulars of some of the said judgments are listed herein-under :-
KAMAL KUMAR
2023.08.01 18:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
CWP-18391-2018 (O&M) 3 2023:PHHC:098225
Sr. Case No. Title
No.
1 CWP-23650/2014 The Punjab State Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd.
Versus State of Punjab.
2 CWP-1088/2010 S.S. Kainth Versus Financial Commissioner (Cooperation)
3 CWP-3873/2017 The Punjab State Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd.
Versus Financial Commissioner (Cooperation)
4 CWP-334/2017 The Punjab State Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd.
Versus Additional Registrar (D) & Others
5 LPA-1369/2017 The Punjab State Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd.
Versus Additional Registrar (D) & Others
6 CWP-3033/2012 Balbir Singh Jammu Versus FCC and others
7 LPA-755/2013 Balbir Singh Jammu Versus FCC and others
8 CWP-10131-2018 The Punjab State Co-operation Supply & Marketing
Federation Ltd. Versus Additional Registrar Cooperative
Societies, Punjab and others
4. The aforesaid judgments are consistent to the effect that while the limitation
for raising a claim in terms of Section 55 of the Act is three years, the
limitation prescribed for filing an appeal in terms of Section 68 of the Act so
as to challenge order passed under Section 55 of the Act is 60 days and that
the Appellate Authority does not have any power to condone the delay in
filing appeal. Although, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel
representing the petitioner cited a Single Bench judgment of this Court
rendered in 2014(4) RCR (Civil) 608 - The Chandigarh Pepsu Cooperative
House Building versus The Secretary, Department of Cooperation and
others to contend that provisions of Limitation Act, 1963, do not stand
attracted to proceedings under Section 55/56 of the Act, as the said
proceedings are not in the nature of a suit, appeal or application but having
regard to the plethora of judgments as noted above including judgments by
KAMAL KUMAR
2023.08.01 18:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
CWP-18391-2018 (O&M) 4 2023:PHHC:098225
Hon'ble Division Benches, the view taken by the aforesaid Single Bench
cannot take precedence. Thus, the limitation for initiating recovery
proceedings would be three years only. In the present case, it is evident
from charge-sheet dated 7.7.2006 (Annexure P-2) that the alleged shortfall
had come to the notice of MARKFED in year 2006 itself whereas recovery
proceedings under Sections 55 and 56 of the Act were initiated in the year
2014. Said proceedings having been initiated beyond limitation of 3 years
were clearly time barred and thus, not maintainable at that stage against Lrs
of Mohinder Singh.
5. In view of the discussion made above, the petition is accepted and the
impugned order dated 11.11.2016 (Annexure P-5) and order dated 7.8.2018
(Annexure P-24) are hereby set aside.
1.8.2023 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill )
kamal Judge
Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable Yes / No
KAMAL KUMAR
2023.08.01 18:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
