SUDAMA PRASAD GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved by the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the Appellant's writ petition, he has filed this appeal.

(2.) APPELLANT Sudama Prasad Gupta was one of the members of Respondent No. 5 which is a Co -operative Society registered under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1912 (hereinafter referred to us the Society). The Society made a claim for an amount of Rs. 3781.16P against the Appellant. Under Rule 115 of the rules framed under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1912 (hereinafter referred to as the 1912 Act), the dispute was referred to arbitration. The Arbitrator found that the amount claimed by the Society against the Appellant had remained unpaid and consequently gave an award to that effect. The Appellant filed an appeal against the award of the Arbitrator which was dismissed on 5 -6 -1968. It may be mentioned here that though the arbitration proceedings had commenced under the 1912 Act, by the time the appeal was decided by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (U.P. Act No. 11 of 1966) had come into force. On the dismissal of his appeal by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies the Appellant preferred a second appeal before Respondent No. 2, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.P. Lucknow. The second appeal was dismissed by the Registrar on 27 -8 -1968, on the ground that no second appeal was maintainable against the order of an Assistant Registrar passed in appeal. It appears that the Appellant also preferred a revision which was also dismissed on 31 -8 -1968 on the ground that the revision did not lie.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Appellant has contended before us that the view taken by the learned Single Judge was incorrect and unsustainable and that since at the time when the arbitration proceedings commenced, he had a right of tiling a second appeal against the order of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, this vested right which was of a substantive character, had not been taken away by any of the provisions of U.P. Act No. 11 of 1966. In support of his contention he placed reliance on a decision by B.N. Lokur J. in Thakur Dass v. Chagan Lal, 1971 AWR 608. The question had directly arisen as to whether in proceedings for arbitration commenced while the 1912 Act was in force, the right of second appeal survived on the repeal of the 1912 Act by the U.P. Act No. 11 of 1966, and re -enactment of that Act. Lokur, J. while holding that the right of a second appeal survived on the coming into force of the U.P. Act No. 11 of 1966 and repeal by it of the 1912 Act, observed as follows: