[2026:RJ-JP:15738] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3747/2026 Prithvi Singh S/o Mangej Singh, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Purohit Jil Ki Dhani, Ward No. 49, Sikar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Registrar Cooperative Societies, Jaipiur, Rajasthan. 2. Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jaipur Zone, Jaipur. 3. Sikar Wholesale Cooperative Upbhokta Bhandar Limited, Sikar Through Chief Manager. 4. The Central Cooperative Bank Tonk, Through Its Managing Director 5. Shri Madan Lal, Ex Chief Manager, Sikar Sahakari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar Limited, Sikar. 6. Shri Mohammad Imran Gauri, Ex Chairperson Sikar Sahakari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar Limited, Sikar. 7. Shri Mahesh Kumar Sharma, Ex Deputy Chairperson Sikar Sahakari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar Limited, Sikar. 8. Shri Hariram Badia, Ex Director, Sikar Sahakari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar Limited, Sikar. 9. Shri Mukundaram, Ex Director Sikar Sahakari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar Limited, Sikar. 10. Shri Shujhauddin Chauhan, Ex Director Sikar Sahakari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar Limited, Sikar. 11. Smt. Jakia Naru, Ex Director Sikar Sahakari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar Limited, Sikar. 12. Smt Kaushaliya Devi, Ex Director Sikar Sahakari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar Limited, Sikar. 13. Shri Amar Singh, Ex Director Sikar Sahakari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar Limited, Sikar. 14. Shri Bhadarmal Meena, Ex Director Sikar Sahakari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar Limited, Sikar. 15. Shri Mohammad Iqbal Gauri, Ex Director Sikar Sahakari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar Limited, Sikar. 16. Nawab Ali, Karmik, Sikar Sahakari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar Limited, Sikar ----Respondents [2026:RJ-JP:15738] (2 of 6) [CW-3747/2026] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yudhishter Ratnoo Mr. Pinaky Pratyangira Paliwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hansraj Kuldeep, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN Order REPORTABLE 15/04/2026 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.08.2025 (Annexure-1) passed under Section 57 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2001"). 3. The facts disclose that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Clerk in the respondent No. 3 Society - Sikar Wholesale Cooperative Upbhokta Bhandar Limited on a contractual basis. His services were regularized and while fixing his pay, the period of temporary services was also considered and the pay was fixed on par with the employees who had similar years of service. Subsequently, the respondent authorities realized that such pay fixation was incorrect and an undertaking was obtained from the petitioner to recover such amount from his salary. The excess payment related to the period commencing from August, 2013 to March, 2015. The surcharge proceedings were initiated on 11.09.2024 based on the enquiry report dated 03.09.2024, conducted under Section 55 of the Act of 2001. Subsequently, by the impugned order, recovery was ordered from the salary of the petitioner. [2026:RJ-JP:15738] (3 of 6) [CW-3747/2026] 4. The principal argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that, for an act or omission relating to the period between August, 2013 to March, 2015, as per the second proviso to Section 57 of the Act of 2001, the enquiry should be initiated within a period of six years from the date of such act or omission and the authority cannot take the date of knowledge subsequent to the 6 years so as to maintain the proceedings within limitation. His argument is that the date of knowledge beyond 6 years cannot be taken beyond the period of 6 years. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the present proceedings are based on the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer under Section 55 of the Act of 2001. The surcharge proceedings under Section 57 of the Act of 2001 can be based on audit, enquiry report or enquiry/inspection/liquidator's report. The present proceedings are based on the enquiry report. As per the second part of the second proviso, the limitation shall commence from the date of knowledge and such limitation is two years. The date of knowledge is the enquiry report which was submitted on 03.09.2024 and the proceedings were initiated on 11.09.2024. Such proceedings are within two years; therefore, the present proceedings are not barred by limitation. 6. To answer such contentions, it is apt to refer to Section 57 of the Act of 2001, specifically the second proviso. Section 57 of the Act of 2001 reads as follows: "57. Surcharge - (1) If on the basis of an audit, inquiry, inspection or a Liquidator's report made under the provisions of this Act, it comes to the knowledge of the Registrar that any person, who has taken any part in the organisation or management of such society or who is or has at any time [2026:RJ-JP:15738] (4 of 6) [CW-3747/2026] been an officer or an employee of the society, has made any payment contrary to the provisions of this Act, the rules or the bye-laws or has caused any deficiency in the assets of the society by wilful negligence or has misappropriated or fraudulently retained any money or other property belonging to such society, the Registrar may, inquire himself or direct any person authorised by him by an order in writing in this behalf, to inquire into the conduct of such person: Provided ........ Provided further that no such inquiry shall be held after the expiry of six years from the date of an act or omission or after the expiry of two years from the date of knowledge of the Registrar of such act or omission: Provided ......... (2) ...... (3) ......" A reading of the first part of the second proviso of Section 57(1) shows that six years' limitation shall commence from the date of the act or omission. The second part of the proviso says that the proceedings can be initiated within two years from the date of knowledge of the Registrar of such act or omission. 7. Now, the question is whether the date of knowledge can be the commencing point for the limitation, if such knowledge is beyond six years from the date of act or omission. If the interpretation is given that the date of knowledge can be even after six years from the date of act or omission, then the first part of the second proviso of Section 57 becomes redundant. 8. It is also relevant to understand that the legislative intention of the new provision by comparing it with the old provision. 9. Section 74 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, which was in the field prior to the Act of 2001, reads as follows: [2026:RJ-JP:15738] (5 of 6) [CW-3747/2026] "74. Surcharge (1) If in the course of an audit, inquiry, inspection or the winding up of a co-operative society, it is found that any person, who has taken any part in the organisation or management of such society or who is or has at any time been an officer or an employee of the society, has made any payment contrary to this Act, the rules or the bye-laws or has caused any deficiency in the assets of the society by breach of trust or willful negligence or has misappropriated or fraudulently retained any money or other property belonging to such society, the Registrar may, of his own motion or on the application of the committee, liquidator or any creditor, inquire himself or direct any person authorised by him by an order in writing in this behalf, to inquire into the conduct of such person: Provided that no such inquiry shall be held after the expiry of six years from the date of any act or omission referred to in this sub-section, 1[or as the case may be from the date of knowledge of the Registrar of such act or omission, whichever is latter. (2) ..... (3) ....." 10. There is similar provision in the old act except to the extent of the words 'whichever is latter'. This means that in the old provision, the date of knowledge, even if it is beyond six years was the commencing point for initiation of surcharge proceedings. The words 'whichever is latter' have been deleted in the new provision. This means that the legislative intention was not to extend the period of six years, being the original period contemplated, from the date of act of omission referred to under the original provision. If the interpretation is given in the manner in which the contention of learned counsel for the respondents is advanced, then the first part of the second proviso becomes redundant. Rules of construction of statutory provisions require [2026:RJ-JP:15738] (6 of 6) [CW-3747/2026] while interpreting one of the provisions, violation of the other proviso should be avoided. 11. In the present case, if the interpretation as contended by the respondents is allowed, it makes the other provision redundant and the interpretation shall be given in such a manner that both provisions are reconciled with each other without making the other provision redundant. The legislative intention as referred to hereinabove is also relevant. The original concept was 'whichever is latter' and such words have been deleted in the new provision. This means that while interpreting the date of knowledge, it should be within six years; that is, the date of knowledge must be interpreted to mean a shorter limitation within an outer limitation of six years. In case the Registrar had knowledge immediately after the act or omission, then two years is the limitation to commence the proceedings; he cannot take advantage of the longer period of six years, since he already had knowledge of the act or omission. This means 'whichever is latter', which has been removed in new provision, has to be read as whichever is earlier. This interpretation reconciles both parts of the second proviso to Section 57(1) of the Act of 2001; therefore, the present impugned proceedings are clearly barred by limitation. 12. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of recovery dated 20.08.2025 (Annexure-1) is quashed and set aside. 13. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (MUNNURI LAXMAN),J 39 - BhumikaP/-