Bishamber Dass vs Additional Registrar (D) Co-Operative Societies Punjab and others

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The Petitioner was working as Secretary of Hans Kalan Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Limited. A claim for recovery from the Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 was referred to the Arbitrator. The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jagraon vide award dated 20th November, 1995 gave an award by which the Petitioner was held liable for an amount of Rs. 70,945/- with interest @ 17.5% till realisation. The Petitioner appealed before the Deputy Registrar. It was contended inter alia that the Arbitrator had acted illegally and had ante-dated the award. The Deputy Registrar dismissed the appeal with the following observations:

After hearing the counsel for both the parties and going through the record of the arbitration case, I have come to the conclusion that the arbitrator has given full opportunity to both the parties. The award of the arbitrator is based on facts. Therefore, the appeal of the Appellant is dismissed. The decision has been announced in the presence of the parties, Dated: 18th July, 1996.

Sd/- Nazar Singh, Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana.

The Petitioner filed a revision petition. It was dismissed by the Additional Registrar vide order dated 30th April, 1997. She observed as under:

I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned Counsel for both the parties and have also gone through the relevant record. A perusal of the award of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jagraon dated 20th November, 1995 reveals that full opportunity has been afforded to the Petitioner for his defence. Similarly, the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana has also afforded full opportunity to the Petitioner and the Petitioner has appeared before him through his counsel. Perusal of the record of the society also reveals that there are many cuttings and over-writings in it. In view of the foregoing reasons and the Petitioner having been afforded full opportunity for defence by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jagraon, Arbitrator and the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana, I find no reason to interfere in their orders dated 20th November, 1995 and 18th July, 1996. The revision petition of the Petitioner is dismissed. The decision in this case was reserved on 17th April, 1997 and has been written on 30th April, 1997. Parties be informed accordingly.

Dated: 30th April, 1997.

Sd/- Suman Rani Bansal, Cooperative Societies. Punjab, Chandigarh"

Copies of these orders have been produced by the Petitioner as Annexures P.2, P.3 and P.5. The Petitioner prays that these orders be quashed.

A written statement has been filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 by Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies. A separate reply has been filed on behalf of Respondent society by its Secretary. No reply has been filed by Respondent No. 5.

Shri Dharam Vir Sharma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that hearing had taken place before the Arbitrator on various dates including 20th November and 27th November, 1995. However, the arbitrator had given the award after 27th November and ante-dated it to read as if it had been delivered on 20th November, 1995. He further submits that this contention was raised before the Appellant and revisional authorities, but has not been considered. The claim made on behalf of the Petitioner has been controverted by the learned Counsel for the Respondents.

The short question that arises for consideration is did the Arbitrator ante-dated the award?

A copy of the award has been produced as Annexure P.2 with the writ petition. A perusal of the opening paragraph of the award shows that " the hearing of the case has taken place on 31st July, 1995, 11th July, 1995, 12th July, 1995, 24th July, 1995, 31st October, 1995, 13th November 1995, 20th November, 1995 and 27th November. 1995." Even on perusal of the original document which is in Gurmukhi script, we find that the dates as noticed above have been given. Leaving aside the facts that there is some discrepancy in the sequence of the dates as noticed in the beginning, the award clearly shows that hearing had taken place on 20th November and 27th November, 1995. Yet, the Arbitrator wishes us to believe that he was giving the award on 20th November, 1995. This cannot be accepted. We are also satisfied that neither the Deputy Registrar nor the Additional Registrar, who heard the appeal and revision respectively applied their mind to the factual aspect of the case.

Learned Counsel for the Cooperative Society contends that the Petitioner owes substantial amount to the Society. It may or may not be so. However, the proceedings must conform to the basic rules of fair play. In the present case the Arbitrator appears to have acted totally arbitrarily. If the hearing had taken place on 27th November, as the award shows that it had, he could not have given the award on 20 November, 1995. At this stage, we wish to say no more.

We quash the award as also the orders passed by the appellate and revisional authorities. It is clarified that fresh proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with law. No costs.

Sd/- V.M. Jain, J.