M.L. Jain, J.
1. The petitioner was the Secretary of the Mandwala Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti in the year 1961-62. In that year, a certain quantity of seed was received by the Samiti for distribution to its members. But the petitioner distributed the seed to non-members without the permission of the Panchayat Samiti The amount from those persons could not be recovered. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies Jalore, started proceedings on 21-5-70 under Section 74 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, and gave a notice on 18-6-70 to the petitioner that by his unauthorised action he has caused a loss of Rs. 4933 22 Paise to the said Samiti and may state his case against the proposed inquiry. The petitioner rep]if d that he was not responsible for any loss which was alleged to have been found in audit made after a lapse of 8 years. On 4 8.70, he was charged with the loss of Rs. 5975 55 paise. Ultimately, by his order on 15-12-70, the Assistant Registrar passed an order under Sub-section (2) of Section 74 to the said Act, directing the petitioner to pay the aforesaid amount with further amount of Rs. 3757.60 paise as interest. He also directed his disqualification of the petitioner from contesting any election with which part we are not here concerned. The petitioner filed a revision before the State Government with was transferred by it to the Registrar Cooperative Societies, who by his order dated 1.3.72 dismissed the revision petition. One of the contentions made before the Registrar was that there was no jurisdiction available to the Assistant Registrar because as provided by the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 74 of the aforesaid Act, no action can be taken after the expiry of 6 years from the date of act or omission complained of. In this case the offending act admittedly took place in the y ear 1962, while the proceedings were started in May 1970. The learned Registrar rejected this argument on the ground that the plea of limitation was not raised before the Assistant Registrar and therefore, it cannot be allowed by him.
2. The petitioner now by this petition challenges the inquiry and the action taken under Section 74 and also the order of the Registrar.
3. The learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing op behalf of the Registrar submitted that the petition must abate under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 58 of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, because the petitioner had an alternative remedy by way of revision to the State Government under Section 128 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioner however submits that when the while proceedings are without jurisdiction, the question of alternative remedy does not arise. He did file a revision tithe State Government but it transferred the same for disposal to the Registrar.
4. I have considered over the matter. There is no doubt that the action was taken after the expiry of 6 years in contravention of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 74 of the Act. In the revision, it was pointed out to the Registrar that the whole enquiry was without jurisdiction having been instituted after the prescribed timer. The Registrar committed an error apparent on the face of the record by disosing of the point of law by saying that it could not be raised as it was not raised before the inquiry officer. The entire proceedings of the Assistant Registrar were without jurisdiction. The petitioner under Section 128 of the said Act had an option to file a revision before the Registrar or to the State Government. He filed a revision with the State Government which was then transferred to and disposed of by the Registrar as aforesaid. In these circumstances, the petition can not be allowed to abate.
5. Consequently, I accept this petition, set aside the order of the Registrar, and quash the proceedings of the Assistant Registrar. This shall however not preclude the Registrar or the Society from taking any other-action if permissible under the law. No costs.