# B.N.S.D. Shiksha Niketan Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya v. The Regional Provident Fund Commiss. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 647
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-03-24
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 48699 of 1999
- **Bench:** Umesh Chandra Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/b-n-s-d-shiksha-niketan-uchchatar-madhyamik-vidyalaya-v-the-regional-provident-49997
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Civil Law-Employees Provident Fund &
Miscellaneous
Provisions
Act,
1952Section 14-B-Writ petition filed seeking
quashing of the order passed by whereby
damages u/s 14-B levied on the belated
payment
in
depositing
the
PF
contribution-Damages u/s 14-B of EPF Act
are penal in nature-Once the petitioner
admitted the applicability of the Act from
the date of coverage then he is liable to
pay penal damages for the delayed
compliance-Object
of
imposition
of
penalty u/s 14-B is not merely "to provide
compensation for the employees"- It is
meant to penalise defaulting employer as
also to provide reparation for the amount
of loss suffered by the employees. (Para
9-20)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

4 All. B.N.S.D. Shiksha Niketan Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Vs. The Regional Provident
 Fund Commiss. & Anr.
647
payment of only 4% annual interest instead
of 10% annual interest as per existing
notification dated 01.10.1987 issued by the
Central Government in respect of Sec 7 (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act,1972.
Thus, this court comes to the conclusion
that the order and judgment passed by the
respondent no. 1 in respect of payment of 4
% interest is contrary and against the law.
Hence, this writ petition is liable to be
allowed.

ORDER

This writ petition is allowed and the
award
dated
18.12.2009
passed
by
respondent no. 1 so far as it relates to
payment of 4% interest is hereby quashed
and is modified to the extent that
respondent no. 2 shall pay 10% interest on
the delayed payment of gratuity for a
period of 4 years and 10 months. It is
directed that respondent no. 2 shall pay the
interest amount as ordered above within a
period of 1 month from the date of
production of a certified copy of this
judgment.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 647
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Writ-C No. 48699 of 1999

B.N.S.D.
Shiksha
Niketan
Uchchatar
Madhyamik Vidyalaya ...Petitioner
Versus
The Regional Provident Fund Commiss. &
Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rajesh Tewari

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C., Sri Nishant Mehrotra, Sri Vijay Kumar Singh

Civil Law-Employees Provident Fund &
Miscellaneous
Provisions
Act,
1952Section 14-B-Writ petition filed seeking
quashing of the order passed by whereby
damages u/s 14-B levied on the belated
payment
in
depositing
the
PF
contribution-Damages u/s 14-B of EPF Act
are penal in nature-Once the petitioner
admitted the applicability of the Act from
the date of coverage then he is liable to
pay penal damages for the delayed
compliance-Object
of
imposition
of
penalty u/s 14-B is not merely "to provide
compensation for the employees"- It is
meant to penalise defaulting employer as
also to provide reparation for the amount
of loss suffered by the employees. (Para
9-20)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

1. Organo Chemical Industries & anr. Vs UOI &
ors., (1979) 4 SCC 573

2. Hindustan Times Ltd. Vs U.O.I & ors. , (1998)
2 SCC 242

3. M/s D.A.V. College & ors. Vs Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner & ors., [1988
(Suppl) SCC 518]

4. Horticulture Experiment Station Gonikoppal,
Coorg Vs Regional Provident Fund Organization,
(2022) 4 SCC 516

(Delivered by Hon'ble Umesh Chandra
Sharma, J.)

1. Heard Shri Rajesh Tewari, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Shri Nishant
Mehrotra
learned
counsel
for
the
respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been
filed seeking quashing of the order dated
648 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
22.01.1999 passed by the respondent no.1.
The petitioner has also sought direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents not to impose the damages
upon the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an
educational institution and is registered
under the Society Registration Act and had
introduced the Provident Fund Scheme for
its employees privately and number of
employees working in the institution were
less than 10 but for the first time on
04.06.1991
the
respondent's
authority
informed that the petitioner's institution
was
covered
under
the
Employees
Provident
Fund
&
Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952 with effect from
01.07.1990. Thereafter the respondents
initiated the proceedings under section 7A
of EPF & MP Act 1952 for realization of
the Provident Fund dues since the date of
enforcement of the Act i.e 01.07.1990 then
the petitioner deposited the entire amount
of the contribution of the period from 1990
to 1995 on 13.10.1995.

4. The counsel for the petitioner
further submitted that when the amount of
contribution was deposited by the petitioner
establishment thereafter it received notice
under section 14-B of the Act for levy of
damages imposed by the respondent
authority as the petitioner has made the
delayed payment and defaulted to pay the
Employees Provident Fund Contribution on
the due date for the period 08/1990 to
06/1996. The submission of the petitioner
is that since the petitioner had already
deposited entire amount of contribution in
1995 and delay in the depositing the
contribution was due to the pendency of the
proceedings under 7A of the Act and also
the petitioner educational institution is
willing to comply the provisions of
Provident Fund Scheme in his School,
however, the respondent authority while
passing
the
impugned
order
dated
22.01.1999 had not consider all the
aforesaid facts.

5. Per Contra, the learned counsel
appeared for the respondents has supported
the order passed under section 14-B of the
Act and submitted that the petitioner
establishment was employing more than 20
employees as on 01.07.1990 and was
covered under the EPF & MP Act 1952
with effect from 01.07.1990 vide letter
dated 27.03.1991 on the basis of enquiry
report dated 24.08.1990 submitted by the
Enforcement Officers and therefore the
petitioner establishment was directed to
comply with provisions of the EPF & MP
Act 1952 and scheme frame there under
vide letter dt. 04.06.1991. A notice dated
07.02.1992 was issued under section 7A of
the Act for determination of the dues. The
establishment disputed the applicability of
the Act on the ground that they were never
employing 20 or more persons. However
the establishment started compliance of the
provisions of the Act and submitted
photocopies of the challans in support of
the demand of the dues deposited for the
period 08/90 to 01/96 i.e since coverage.

6. The learned counsel for the
respondents further submits that petitioner
had been covered under the EPF & MP Act
1952 with effect from 01.07.1990 by
coverage letter dated 27.03.1991 and at the
later stage has accepted the liability and
started the compliance of the provisions of
the Act and in such circumstances the
employer establishment had defaulted for
the payment of Provident Fund dues for a
long time and for the said reason the
establishment is liable to pay the damages
4 All. B.N.S.D. Shiksha Niketan Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Vs. The Regional Provident
 Fund Commiss. & Anr.
649
levied on the belated payment under the
provisions of Section 14B of the EPF &
MP Act 1952 because the delay was on the
part of the petitioner in depositing the PF
contribution, hence the petitioner is liable
to pay damages as per Section 14-B of the
EPF Act. The EPF Act is social security
legislation and is meant for the benefits of
the employees. The provisions of Section
14-B and Section 7-Q of the EPF Act have
to be strictly construed.

7. I have given my thoughtful
consideration to the submissions made by
learned counsel for both the parties and
have also perused the material on record.

8. Undisputedly, EPF Act is a
beneficial piece of legislation. It was
passed with an object of making some
provisions for the future of the industrial
worker after his retirement or for his
dependents in the case of his early death.
The parliamentarian, after considering
various
financial
and
administrative
difficulties in old and survival pension"s
schemes and gratuity schemes, agreed to
introduce the institution of contributory
provident fund schemes in which, both the
worker and the employer would contribute.
Provident fund scheme was considered as a
means to encourage the stabilization of a
steady labour force in industrial centre. The
Parliamentarians were well aware of the
fact that with industrial growth, although,
the big employers had introduced the
scheme of provident fund for the welfare of
their workers, but all these schemes until
then were private and voluntary and the
workers of the small employers remain
deprived of the benefits which were
provided by big employers. Thus, with an
object
to
provide
for
compulsoryestablishment of provident fund
by every employer in the industrial
concerns
for
the
betterment
of
his
employee, the EPF Act was enacted.

9. The EPF Act under its various
sections, encompasses the provisions for
establishment of Employees" Provident
Fund Schemes, contribution and matters
which may be provided for in scheme,
determination of money due from the
employer, deposit of amount due, mode of
penalties, recovery, etc. Section 14-B of the
EPF Act provides for the power to recover
damages which is material in the present
case. Section 14-B of the EPF Act reads as
under: -

"14B. Power to recover damages -
Where an employer makes default in the
payment of any contribution to the Fund,
the Pension Fund or the Insurance Fund or
in the transfer of accumulations required to
be transferred by him under sub-section (2)
of section 15 or sub-section (5) of section
17 or in the payment of any charges
payable under any other provision of this
Act or of any Scheme or Insurance Scheme
or under any of the conditions specified
under section 17, the Central Provident
Fund Commissioner or such other officer
as may be authorised by the Central
Government, by notification in the Official
Gazette, in this behalf may recover from the
employer by way of penalty such damages,
not exceeding the amount of arrears, as
may be specified in the Scheme:

Provided that before levying and
recovering such damages, the employer
shall be given a reasonable opportunity of
being heard:

Provided further that the Central
Board may reduce or waive the damages
levied under this section in relation to an
establishment which is a sick industrial
company and in respect of which a scheme
for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by
650 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Board for Industrial and Financial
Reconstruction established under section 4
of the SickIndustrial Companies (Special
Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject
to such terms and conditions as may be
specified in the Scheme."

10. Section 14-B of the EPF Act was
inserted with an object to act as a deterrent
measure on the employer to prevent them
from not carrying out their statutory
obligations to make payments to the
provident fund. The damages under Section
14-B EPF Act are penal in nature. This
section authorizes the Central Provident Fund
Commissioner or such other officer as may
be authorized to impose exemplary or
punitive damages and thereby prevent the
employer from making defaults. In the
absence of such a provision, the employer
could deliberately default in the payment of
their provident fund contributions and in the
meanwhile utilize both their contributions as
well as that of employees" in their business.
In such a case, an employer could delay the
payment of provident fund dues without any
genuine reasons on his part for doing so and
may escape from his liability to make
payment without undergoing any additional
financial liabilities. To prevent this, the said
section was made a part of the EPF Act and
also the words "damages not exceeding 25%
of amount of arrears" were amended to "not
exceeding the amount of arrears" under the
said section.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Organo Chemical Industries and Anr. vs.
UOI & Ors., (1979) 4 SCC 573, referred to
the
reasons
which
made
the
Parliamentarian to insert Section 14-B on
the statute book and observed: -

"10. In its working, the authorities
were faced with certain administrative
difficulties.
An
employer
coulddelay
payment of Provident Fund dues without
any
additional
financial
liability.
Parliament, accordingly, inserted Section
14-B for recovery of damages on the
amount of arrears. The reason for enacting
Section 14-B is that employers may be
deterred
and
thwarted
from
making
defaults
in
carrying
out
statutory
obligations to make payments to the
Provident Fund. The object and purpose of
the section is to authorise the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner to impose
exemplary or punitive damages and thereby
to prevent employers from making defaults.
Section
14-B
as
originally
enacted,
provided for imposition of such damages,
not exceeding 25% of the amount of
arrears. This, however, did not prove to be
sufficiently deterrent. The employers were
still
making
defaults
in
making
contributions to the Provident Fund, and in
the meanwhile utilizing both their own
contribution as well as the employees'
contribution,
in
their
business.
The
provision contained in Section 14-B for
recovery of damages, therefore, proved to
be illusory. Accordingly, by Act 40 of 1973,
the words "twenty-five per cent of" were
omitted from Section 14-B and the words
"not exceeding the amount of arrear" were
substituted. The intention is to invest the
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
with power to impose such damages that
the employer would not find it profitable to
make defaults in making payments."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court speaking
through Sen, J. in Organo Chemical's case
(supra) discussed the scope of "damages"
under Section 14-B of the EPF Act and
observed as under: -

"22.
The
expression
"damages"
occurring in Section 14-B is, in substance,
4 All. B.N.S.D. Shiksha Niketan Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Vs. The Regional Provident
 Fund Commiss. & Anr.
651
a penalty imposed on the employer for the
breach of the statutory obligation. The
object of imposition of penalty under
Section 14-B is not merely "to provide
compensation for the employees". We are
clearly of the opinion that the imposition of
damages under Section 14-B serves both
the purposes. It is meantto penalise
defaulting employer as also to provide
reparation for the amount of loss suffered
by the employees. It is not only a warning
to employers in general not to commit a
breach of the statutory requirements of
Section 6, but at the same time it is meant
to provide compensation or redress to the
beneficiaries
i.e.
to
recompense
the
employees for the loss sustained by them.
There is nothing in the section to show that
the damages must bear relationship to the
loss which is caused to the beneficiaries
under the Scheme. The word "damages" in
Section 14-B is related to the word
"default". The words used in Section 14-B
are "default in the payment of contribution"
and, therefore, the word "default" must be
construed in the light of Para 38 of the
Scheme which provides that the payment of
contribution has got to be made by the 15th
of the following month and, therefore, the
word "default" in Section 14-B must mean
"failure in performance" or "failure to act".
At the same time, the imposition of
damages under Section 14-B is to provide
reparation for the amount of loss suffered
by the employees."

In the same judgment, concurring with
Sen J., Krishna Iyer J., with regard to
damages observed as under: -

"38. What do we mean by "damages"?
The expression "damages" is neither vague
nor over-wide. It has more than one
signification but the precise import in a
given context is not difficult to discern. A
plurality of variants stemming out of a core
concept is seen in such words as actual
damages, civil damages, compensatory
damages,
consequential
damages,
contingent damages, continuing damages,
double
damages,
excessive
damages,
exemplary damages, general damages,
irreparable damages, pecuniary damages,
prospective damages, special damages,
speculative damages, substantial damages,
unliquidated damages. But the essentials
are (a) detriment to one by the wrongdoing
of another, (b) reparation awarded to the
injured through legal remedies,and (c) its
quantum being determined by the dual
components of pecuniary compensation for
the loss suffered and often, not always, a
punitive addition as a deterrent-cumdenunciation by the law. For instance,
"exemplary damages" are damages on an
increased scale, awarded to the plaintiff
ever
and
above
what
will
barely
compensate him for his property loss,
where the wrong done to him was
aggravated by circumstances of violence,
oppression, malice, fraud, or wanton and
wicked conduct on the part of the
defendant, and are intended to solace the
plaintiff for mental anguish, laceration of
his feelings, shame, degradation, or other
aggravations of the original wrong, or else
to punish the defendant for his evil
behavior or to make an example of him, for
which
reason
they
are
also
called
"punitive" or "punitory" damages or
"vindictive"
damages,
and
(vulgarly)
"smart-money".
[
See
Black's
Law
Dictionary, 4th Edn., pp. 467-648] It is
sufficient for our present purpose to state
that the power conferred to award damages
is delimited by the content and contour of
the concept itself and if the Court finds the
Commissioner travelling beyond, the blow
will fall. Section 14-B is good for these
reasons."
652 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

In the same context the Apex Court in
Hindustan Times Ltd. Vs U.O.I and
Others , (1998) 2 SCC 242, held: -

"29. From the aforesaid decisions, the
following principles can be summarised:

The authority under Section 14-B has
to apply his mind to the facts of the case
and the reply to the show- cause notice and
pass a reasoned order after following
principles of natural justice and giving a
reasonable opportunity of being heard; the
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
usually takes into consideration the number
of defaults, the period of delay, the
frequency of default and the amounts
involved; default on the part of the
employer based on plea of power-cut,
financial
problems
relating
to
other
indebtedness or the delay in realisation of
amounts paid by the cheques or drafts,
cannot be justifiable grounds for the
employer to escape liability; there is no
period of limitation prescribed by the
legislature for initiating action for recovery
of damages under Section 14-B. The fact
that proceedings are initiated or demand
for damages is made after several years
cannot by itself be a ground for drawing an
inference of waiver or that the employer
was lulled into a belief that no proceedings
under Section 14-B would be taken; mere
delay in initiating action under Section 14B cannot amount to prejudice inasmuch as
the delay on the part of the Department,
would have only allowed the employer to
use the monies for his own purposes or for
his business especially when there is no
additionalprovision for charging interest.
However, the employer can claim prejudice
if there is proof that between the period of
default and the date of initiation of action
under Section 14-B, he has changed his
position to his detriment to such an extent
that if the recovery is made after a large
number of years, the prejudice to him is of
an "irretrievable" nature; he might also
claim prejudice upon proof of loss of all the
relevant records and/or non- availability of
the personnel who were, several years back
in charge of these payments and provided
he further establishes that there is no other
way he can reconstruct the record or
produce evidence; or there are other
similar grounds which could lead to
"irretrievable" prejudice; further, in such
cases of "irretrievable" prejudice, the
defaulter must take the necessary pleas in
defence in the reply to the show-cause
notice and must satisfy the authority
concerned with acceptable material; if
those pleas are rejected, he cannot raise
them in the High Court unless there is a
clear pleading in the writ petition to that
effect."

12 Further, under Section 14-B of
EPF Act the authority concerned is
empowered to impose a penalty up to a
maximum limit, i.e., "such damages, not
exceeding the amount of arrears, as may be
specified in the Scheme" however, it is not
mandatory that the competent authority
must always impose the maximum cap of
damages provided under the said section as
a matter of routine or as a mechanical
exercise. Rather, the authority concerned is
expected to pass an order that would sub-
serve the purpose of introduction of Section
14-B in the scheme of the EPF Act.

13. Therefore, it becomes obligatory
on the concerned authority that once it
makes up its mind to impose penalty it
should also decide the quantum of damages
which it seeks to impose on the erring
party. Here too the competent authority is
under an obligation to decide the quantum
of damages only after consideration of
proper facts and circumstances of the case.
4 All. B.N.S.D. Shiksha Niketan Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Vs. The Regional Provident
 Fund Commiss. & Anr.
653

14. Also, the provisions of the E.P.F.
and M.P. Act is applicable to the
educational institutions in India as provided
in Para 1 (3) (b) (xcvi) of The Employee's
Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 ("...as
respects the educational, scientific, research
and training institutions specified in the
notification of the Government of India in
the Ministry of Labour No. S.O. 986, dated
the 19th February 1981, published in Part
II, Section 3, sub-section (ii) of the Gazette
of India, dated the 6th March 1982").

15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
matter of M/s D.A.V. College and Others
Vs.
Regional
Provident
Fund
Commissioner and others, [1988 (Suppl)
SCC 518] held as under :-

" Shri S.K. Bagga, learned Counsel
appears for the petitioners. We do not find
any substance in the contention of the
petitioners
in
these
cases
that
the
Employees'
Provident
Funds
and
Miscellaneous
Provisions
Act,
1952
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has no
application to the educational institutions
who are petitioners in these cases. We,
therefore, dismiss all these cases."

16. In the present case, initially the
establishment disputed the applicability of
the Act on the ground that they were never
employing 20 or more persons and the
delay had caused due to pendency of 7-A
proceeding under the Act however the
establishment started compliance of the
provisions of the Act subsequently and
deposited the dues amount in compliance
of the demand notice for the period 08/90
to 01/96 i.e since coverage.

17. The learned counsel for the
petitioner
also
did
not
dispute
the
contention of the respondent Counsel that
the petitioner had been covered under the
EPF & MP Act, 1952 with effect from
01.07.1990
by
coverage
letter
dated
27.03.1991 and at the later stage has
accepted the liability and started the
compliance of the provisions of the Act.
Once the petitioner had admitted the
applicability of the Act from the date of
coverage then the institution is liable to pay
penal damages for the delayed compliance.

18.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent nos. 1 & 2 has placed reliance
on the judgment passed in Horticulture
Experiment Station Gonikoppal, Coorg
Vs.
Regional
Provident
Fund
Organization, (2022) 4 SCC 516, wherein
following observation has been made;

"Taking note of three-Judge Bench
judgment of this Court in Union of India
and
Others
v.
Dharmendra
Textile
Processors and others (supra), which is
indeed binding on us, we are of the
considered view that any default or delay in
the payment of EPF contribution by the
employer under the Act is a sine qua non
for imposition of levy of damages under
Section 14B of the Act 1952 and mens rea
or actus reus is not an essential element for
imposing penalty/damages for breach of
civil obligations/liabilities."

19. In such circumstances of the case it
transpires that the Petitioner establishment
had defaulted for the payment of Provident
Fund dues for a long time and for the said
reason it is liable to pay the damages levy
on
the
belated
payment
under
the
provisions of Section 14B of the EPF &
MP Act 1952 because the delay was on the
part of the petitioner in depositing the
Provident Fund contribution and hence the
petitioner is liable to pay damages as per
Section 14-B of the EPF Act. The damages
654 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
occurring in Section 14-B is, in substance,
a penalty imposed on the employer for
the breach of the statutory obligation. The
object of imposition of penalty under
Section 14-B is not merely "to provide
compensation for the employees". The
imposition of damages under Section 14B serves both the purposes. It is meant to
penalise defaulting employer as also to
provide reparation for the amount of loss
suffered by the employees. It is not only a
warning to employers in general not to
commit
a
breach
of
the
statutory
requirements of Section 6, but at the same
time it is meant to provide compensation
or redress to the beneficiaries i.e. to
recompense the employees for the loss
sustained by them.

20. In the light of aforesaid
discussion, this Court is of the opinion
that the respondent no.1 has rightly
passed
the
impugned
order
dated
22.01.1999 under section 14-B of the
EPF & MP Act, 1952. Therefore, the writ
petition lacks merit and is liable to be
dismissed.

21. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed. Stay order, if any, shall stand
vacated.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 654
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Writ-C No. 1007386 of 2009

Raj Kishore Dhaon ...Petitioner
Versus
Registrar Co-Operative Societies U.P. Lko.
& Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Anurag Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. UP Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 -
Section 68 - Surcharge -Payment of exgratia - Loss to the Bank occurred -
Surcharge imposed - Legality challenged
- No notice was given - Effect - The
petitioner admittedly has not been held
responsible in the enquiry report. Only
order for recovery has been passed. In the
enquiry report the name of the petitioner
has
been
inserted
by
interpolation/overwriting - Effect - Held,
there is also no finding in the enquiry
report or in the show cause notice that the
petitioner
is
liable
for
causing
the
payment of ex-gratia of 1995-96, hence,
for this reason surcharge cannot be
imposed. (Para 15 and 16)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:
Raghunandan Prasad Pandey & ors. Vs The CoOperative Tribunal Lucknow & ors.; 1982 SCC
OnLine All 913

(Delivered by Hon'ble Karunesh Singh
Pawar, J.)

1. Heard Shri Anurag Kumar Singh,
learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri
P.C.Rai,
learned
Counsel
for
the
State/respondent as well as perused the
record.

2. The petitioner has assailed the
impugned order dated 14.10.2009 passed
by U.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Lucknow by
which surcharge, in exercise of power
under Section 68(2) of the U.P. Cooperative
Societies Act, 1965 (in short hereinafter
referred to as 'Act') has been imposed upon
the petitioner and he has been directed to