JAGDISH SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the instant petition is focused on awards dated 28th July, 2000, 21.12.1987 and 21.12.1983 rendered by Additional District Cooperative Officer, Chunar, Mirzapur and consequent recovery citations dated 6.3.2002. The petition was heard on various dates and last hearing in the case was made on 10.5.2004 on which date the petition was allowed stipulating that reasons would follow.

(2.) Brief facts as may bear upon the controversy involved in this petition may be recapitulated hereinafter. As the materials on record indicate, the petitioner who claims himself to be a marginal farmer, had obtained seeds of the value of Rs. 6.756.89 and Rs. 4,970.15 respectively from Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Bat Bantara Madhupur Sonebhadra, as far back as in the year 1982 for his crops. Concededly, the petitioner could not repay the amount to the aforestated Samiti due to successive failure of crops thereafter. It is canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that subsequently, Government order dated 13.5.1990 came to be issued by which agriculturalists were given relief of exemption in the matter of recovery of loan to the extent of Rs. 10,000 granted prior to 2.10.1989 and consequently, he laboured under sense of complacence during all this period that he was relieved of repaying the loan. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner was stunned to receive citation dated 6.3.2002 and it was upon receipt of citation that he became aware that the respondent Sadhan Sahkari Co-operative Society took recourse to arbitration which were continued slyly and ultimately culminated in awards and citation impugned therein. It was further canvassed that the petitioner never knew of the proceeding nor was he served with any summon or notice as mandated under the U. P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1968, nor was he given any opportunity of hearing and the entire proceeding being in antagonism of mandatory provisions of the Act and Rules is impaired. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Sadhan Society contended that citation was issued pursuant to the awards impugned herein and it was rightly passed and citation was rightly issued. However, when confronted with the averments made in para 8 of the writ petition, the learned counsel did not controvert the facts that the notice/summons were not served to the petitioner during the entire arbitration proceeding.

(3.) In connection with the above contentions, I feel called to refer to the relevant provisions contained in Section 71 of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. Clause (5) of Section 71 envisages that the procedure to be followed by the Registrar, the arbitrator or the board of arbitrators in deciding a dispute and making an award under this section shall be as may be prescribed. Rules framed under the Act prescribe procedure to be followed. Rule 237 (c) envisages that the summons may be served (i) by registered (acknowledgment due) post, or (ii) by personal service through the secretary of the society or a member of the staff of the financing or supervising society and (d) if the service of summons could not be effected by any of the modes specified under Sub-rule (c) it may be effected by any other mode provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. 5 of 1908). Reverting to the facts of the present case, it has not been repudiated by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner was not served with summon or notice in the course of arbitration proceeding. In response to specific averments made in para 8 of the writ petition to the effect that no opportunity was given before passing of the said award and no notice/summon fixing 29.12.1983, was received by the petitioner No. 1 and that the petitioner had no knowledge of this award until the year 2004, the learned counsel did not repudiate the averments save saying that the awards were rightly made and citation was rightly issued. As stated supra, Section 71 (5) prescribes that the Arbitrator shall follow procedure as may be prescribed. The procedure in connection with it are prescribed in Rule 237 (c) of the Rules framed under the Act.