C K DAMODARAN Vs. KERALA CO OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two writ petitioners in O. P. No. 2392 of 1976 are the appellants before us. THEy figured as defendants in an arbitration case instituted by the 2nd respondent-the Liquidator, Puthupally Coir Vyavasaya Co-operative society Limited before the Special Officer for Coir, Trivandrum who had been empowered to exercise the powers of a Registrar under the Co-operative Societies Act and to function as the arbitrator under S. 69 of the said Act. Subsequently, the case was transferred from the file of the Special Officer for Coir, Trivandrum to that of the 3rd respondent-the Assistant District Industries Officer (Coir)Kayamkulam who had also been invested with the powers of a Registrar under S. 69 of the Act, THE arbitrator passed an award in the case on 7-11-1974. A notice of the award was issued to the petitioners under Rule 68 of the Kerala co-operative Societies Rules on 20-12-1974 and it was actually served on the petitioners on 30-12-1974. THE petitioners thereafter applied for the grant of a certified copy of the award on 2-1-1975 and the copy was furnished to them on 28-1-1975. Producing the said certified copy, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Kerala Cooperative Tribunal, Trivandrum under S. 82 of the Act on 17-2-1975 together with an application praying that the delay, if any, in the presentation of the said appeal should be condoned.

(2.) THE Co-operative Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay by its order Ext. PI dated 28th February, 1976. THE tribunal took the view that the period of limitation of 60 days for filing the appeal prescribed S. 82 of the Act started running from the very date on which the award was passed by the arbitrator and even after excluding the time spent by the petitioners (26 days) in getting the certified copy from the office of the arbitrator there was a delay of 16 days in filing the appeal. THE Tribunal further held that the petitioners had not furnished any proper explanation for the said delay and hence the prayer for condonation of the delay could not be granted. On this reasoning the Tribunal rejected the petitioners' application for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. THE challenge in the writ petition (O. P. No. 2392 of 1976) was directed against the order Ext. PI.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the short ground that no interference was called for with the order passed by the Cooperative Tribunal on the basis of the finding of fact arrived by it that the petitioners had failed to furnish a satisfactory explanation for the delay.