Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

Mehtab S. Gill, J.—The petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the arbitration award dated April 20, 1999 (Annexure P.1) passed by the Inspector, Cooperative Societies (R.D.) Nabha (arbitrator), as also order dated May 26, 2000 (Annexure P.2) passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nabha and order dated October 10, 2000 (Annexure P.3) passed by the Special Secretary, Cooperation (Appeals), Punjab, Chandigarh.

The petitioner has averred that respondent No. 3 i.e. the Tohra Cooperative Agricultural Service Ltd. Village and Post Office Tohra, Tehsil Nabha, district Patiala (hereinafter referred to as "the society") prepared an arbitration reference for the principal amount of Rs. 15,000/ alongwith interest and costs totalling an amount of Rs. 17,800/. In order to settle this dispute, an arbitrator was appointed who, vide his arbitration award dated April 20, 1999, held the petitioner liable for this amount, a copy of which is annexed with the writ petition as Annexure P.1.

Against the arbitration award dated April 20, 1999 (Annexure P.1) passed by the Arbitrator, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 68 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nabha. Appeal of the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated May 26, 2000 (Annexure P.2).

Against the arbitration award dated April 20, 1999 (Annexure P.1) passed by the Arbitrator and the order dated May 26, 2000 (Annexure P.2) passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nabha, the petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 69 of the Act before the Special Secretary, Cooperation (Appeals), Punjab, Chandigarh exercising the powers of the State Government under the Act. The revision of the petitioner was also dismissed vide order dated October 10, 2000, a copy of which is attached with the writ petition as Annexure P.3.

The petitioner has further averred that the revision petition which was fixed before the State Government on October 10, 2000, was not fixed for passing of the order. In the cause list also, it was not fixed for arguments, but the arguments were heard on that date. A copy of the cause list dated October 10, 2000 is attached with the writ petition as Annexure P.4.

Notice of motion was issued to the respondents.

Written statements were filed by the respondents. In the written statement filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, it has been stated that for the recovery of Rs. 15,000/ an account of payment of fee to the advocates for the period from April 1, 1997 to November 25, 1998, no receipts existed in the records of the society.

In the written statement filed by the Society (respondent No. 3), it has been stated that the petitioner misappropriated a sum of Rs. 15,000/ and later on prepared bogus receipts showing that the payments were made to the advocates for pursuing certain cases, but no receipts were existing at the time when the award was passed. The petitioner has manipulated the receipts.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, perused the writ petition, written statements and the annexures attached therewith.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the receipts which were placed before the arbitrator were not looked into and the arbitrator passed the award dated April 20, 1999 (Annexure P.1) even without giving a proper hearing to the petitioner.

Going through the award dated April 20, 1999 (Annexure P.1), the arbitrator has stated that the case was heard on April 20, 1999 and the present petitioner, i.e. Bachan Singh did not show any receipt of the lawyer. Since there was no proof of the payment of Rs. 15,000/, the petitioner had embezzled this amount. I do not agree with the finding recorded by the Arbitrator in his award.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record photostat copies of the receipts given by the lawyers to the petitioner. First receipt has been given by Shri Jagdish Parshad Gupta, Taxation Advisor, Patiala. This receipt is dated May 5, 1998 for a sum of Rs. 5,000/ to attend to the Salestax cases of the Society for the years 197980 to 198788. Second receipt has also been issued by Shri Jagdish Parshad Gupta, Taxation Advisor, Patiala. This receipt is dated May 5, 1998 for a sum of Rs. 5,000/ to attend the Salestax cases of the Society for the years 197980 to 198788. Third receipt has been given by Shri K.C. Nirola, Advocate, Patiala. This receipt is dated September 15, 1998 for an amount of Rs. 4,200/ for the period from April 1, 1997 to March 31, 1998 and fourth receipt is dated September 15, 1998 for a sum of Rs. 800/. This payment was made to the clerk of Shri K.C. Nirola, Advocate, Patiala.

The receipts which have been shown to me today seem to be genuine documents because no advocate would give a false receipt to his client only to save him.

I find no merit in the award dated April 20, 1999 passed by the Arbitrator (Annexure P.1), as also the order dated May 26, 2000 (Annexure P.2) passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nabha and the order dated October 10, 2000 (Annexure P.3) passed by the Special Secretary, Cooperation z9Appeals), Punjab, Chandigarh. These orders are, thus, quashed.

With these observations, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.