Can condone delay in filing appeals under Coop Societies Act: HC

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, June 30

In a significant judgment liable to change the way appeals filed by co-operative societies are heard, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that a delay in filing the same can be condoned beyond the prescribed period of 60 days. Justice Pankaj Jain also made it clear that the appellate seeking condonation of delay should have “sufficient cause” to satisfy the court for not preferring the appeal within the timeframe.

Sufficient reason

Remedy of appeal should not be rendered redundant in cases where there is sufficient cause to explain the delay in filing it. Justice Pankaj Jain

The judgment is significant as the provision to condone delay is absent in the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. Justice Jain’s Bench, during the course of the hearing, was told that the authority had no power to condone the delay in the absence of “any enabling provision”.

Justice Jain was hearing 11 writ petitions by Punjab State Co-op Supply Marketing Federation or Markfed relating to recovery proceedings initiated against its employees for causing losses. All appeals were filed by petitioner Markfed beyond the prescribed period.

In one of the cases, Markfed claimed a loss of more than Rs 69 lakh following shortage and rate difference in wheat crop due to a field officer’s negligence. Dismissing the claim petition, an arbitrator answered the dispute in the officer’s favour. Markfed’s appeal before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, was dismissed “being barred by delay”. Justice Jain asserted that the law of limitation did not extinguish claim, but barred the remedy. The claim having been rendered stale was a pre-requisite to bar the remedy on account of delay. Interpreting the provision of limitation so strictly as to oust even consideration of sufficient cause would mean ignoring the very concept of co-operative movement.

Justice Jain said the foundation of co-operative movement was based upon mutual cooperation punctuated with an objective to minimise interference from outside. “It is based upon organising the ‘units’ into unity. Cooperative societies engage employees for their business. It is these employees, who act as their arms, mind and, thus, are responsible for filing appeals within prescribed period of limitation. Thus, to interpret Section 68 (on filing appeals) by closing doors even for entertaining the plea of there being a sufficient cause for condoning the delay would be an anti-thesis to the very objective of the co-operative movement itself i.e. ‘mutual co-operation’”.