DELHI COOPERATIVE TRIBUNAL Vs. A C AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The monetary claim of a litigant against an officer performing judicial functions has given rise to the present litigation.

(2.) The respondent is a retired IAS officer and in terms of an award dated 23.02.1999 was held liable to pay maintenance/water charges in respect of the Delhi Officers Cooperative House Building Society Limited along with interest.

(3.) The respondent aggrieved by the same filed two appeals under Section 76 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 (herein-after referred to as the 'Societies Act') in respect of the two cases decided in terms of the award. These petitions were dismissed in limine by Sh.Madan Jha, Delhi Cooperative Tribunal, Delhi in 18.05.1999. The respondent aggrieved by the same filed a writ petition in this court being Civil Writ Petition No.1061/2000, but the same was dismissed for non prosecution on 03.03.2003. The respondent took no steps to get the same restored. The respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs 8,000/-against Mr.Madan Jha, IAS, Presiding Officer, Delhi Cooperative Tribunal in July, 2000 after the Tribunal had passed an order but before dismissal of the writ petition for non prosecution. The claim in the suit is on account of injury caused by Sh.Madan Jha by his acts of commission and omission. The history of the dispute between the respondent and the Society in respect of the maintenance charges has been set out in the plaint and it has been alleged that the appeals decided by Sh.Madan Jha are conclusive and cannot be called into question in any civil or revenue court. It has also been alleged that the arbitrator had intentionally committed various acts of omission and commission which were brought to the notice of the Tribunal but Sh.Madan Jha deliberately and maliciously did not consider any of the acts of omission and commission on the part of the arbitrator who has failed to take note of various facts and pleas while passing the order. It is thus claimed that he is guilty of misfeasance while performing his duties as Presiding Officer of the Tribunal and did not act in good faith and it is a case of proven mala fide. The damages claimed of Rs 8,000/- are on two accounts " financial loss of Rs 6,000 in the appeal and Rs 2,000/- on account of mental anguish and harassment. The plaint states that the notice was served under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (herein after referred to as the said Code). The said notice has been addressed to Sh.Madan Jha, Presiding Officer, Delhi Cooperative Tribunal.