2025:HHC:7168 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 249 of 2017 Decided on: 21.03.2025 The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank through its Branch Manager … Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Addl. AG for respondent-State. : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sohail Khan, Advocate for respondents No. 3, 4 and 6 to 11. : Mr. Sandeep Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No. 5. : Mr. Ashok Chowdhary, Advocate for respondent No.15. : Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajeet Singh Jaswal, Advocate, for respondent No. 21. : Mr. Manoj Kumar,District Audit Officer, O/o Addl. Registrar Cooperative, North Zone, H.P. Dharamshala present in person. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has primarily 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:7168 prayed for the following reliefs:- “i)) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued quashing the orders dated 24.4.2010, Annexure P-5, passed by Joint Registrar 62,68 (Marketing), order dated 1.8.2014, Annexure P-6, passed by the Additional Registrar (Adm.) and Annexure P-7, order dated 12.4.2016 passed by the Joint Secretary Cooperation Shimla. (ii) That the order dated 6.10.1999 passed by the Ld. Arbitrator may kindly be restored.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this writ petition are that in order to recover certain loans, which were advanced by the Bank to one Jawali Ex-servicemen Cooperative Transport Society, arbitration proceedings were initiated by it against the said society. The award was passed in terms of Annexure P-4, dated 06.10.2019, in favour of the petitioner-bank. 3. Feeling aggrieved, by the said award, some of the guarantors filed an appeal under Section 93 of the H.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1968. This appeal was allowed by the Appellate Authority on 24.04.2010 vide Annexure P-5 in the following terms:- “Therefore, in view of the above long discussion based on facts and circumstances I have been arrived at this conclusion that respondent Bank has every right to recover the loan amounting to Rs.10,10,887/- along with interest 3 2025:HHC:7168 which appeared on 6th October, 1999 as per the books of the respondent Bank where none of the parties had any dispute, but on the other hand Ld. Arbitrator attached two buses which were in operation at the time of announcing the award and Bank despite the clear award, did not act according to the rule and circumstances and ultimately sold. the buses on a throw away price where respondent society cannot be held liable to pay such amount which could have been realized out of the assets of the society and this asset amounted to Rs.8, 70,524.45 on 31.3.2000. Hence, in the interest of justice this amount is deducted from the Pl amount i.e. Rs.10,10,887/- and rest amount i.e. Rs.1,02,368/- is ordered to be paid by the respondent society within a period of three months from today and rest amount i.e. 8,70,524,45/-be recovered from those employees and Managers who deliberately did not discharge their duties and remained unattached and disinterested towards the recovery and allowed Shri Mast Ram time bound manner and if he fails to repay, in that event respondent society shall be at liberty to frame the arbitration proceeding against him to recover the money before the competent authority under Rules. Parties shall bear the cost themselves. The decision reserved on 27th March, 2010 is hereby released on 24th April, 2010 parties be informed of. The file be consigned to records after needful.” 4 2025:HHC:7168 4. The order of the Appellate Authority was assailed by the Bank by way of a revision petition. Vide order dated 01.08.2014, Annexure P-6, the Revisional Authority dismissed the revision and upheld the order passed by the Appellate Authority. 5. Feeling aggrieved, second revision was filed by the petitioner-Bank. In terms of Annexure P-7, order darted 12.04.2016, the second revision petition was dismissed by the Revisional Authority by holding that in terms of the law laid down by this Court, second revision was not maintainable. The Revisional Authority relied upon the judgment of this Court dated 01.09.2015 passed in CWP No. 1938 of 2010, in this regard. However, while dismissing the second revision petition, the petitioner was given liberty to seek remedy before appropriate Fora or Court, by observing that the time spent by the parties in pursuing the second revision not be counted for delay and shall be condoned for the purpose of limitation. 6. The petitioner has inter alia assailed this order by stating that the Authority has erred in holding that the second revision is not maintainable. 7. Having heard learned Court for the parties and having carefully gone through the order under challenge as well as the 5 2025:HHC:7168 provisions of the H.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1968, as interpreted by this Court, there is no infirmity in the findings returned by the Authority that second revision is not maintainable. In terms of the law laid down by this Court, relied in the order passed by the Authority as well as the subsequent judgments of this Court, it now stands settled that under the provisions of the H.P. Cooperative Societies Act, second revision is not maintainable. 8. Therefore, as the findings so returned by the learned Revisional Authority do not suffer from any infirmity, this writ petition is dismissed but liberty granted to the petitioner by the second revisional Authority is not rescinded. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 21, 2025 (narender)