LAWS(P&H)-2014-7-595

INDER SINGH Vs. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY

Decided On July 10, 2014
INDER SINGH Appellant
V/S
The Additional Secretary Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above mentioned 13 Civil Writ Petitions i.e. CWP Nos. 1843, 2670 to 2673, 3162 to 3169 of 2000 have been listed together for hearing. All the above mentioned 13 writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the facts in CWP No. 1843 of 2000. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, facts are taken from this case.

(2.) Instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of impugned award dated 06.09.1993 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent no.3, appellate order dated 27.12.1995 (Annexure P/2) passed by respondent no.2 and revisional order dated 07.10.1999 (Annexure P/4) passed by respondent no.1.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was an ex-Secretary of respondent No.4 which is a society registered under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). In the year 1992, respondent no.4 society raised an arbitration dispute under Sections 55/56 of the Act against respondent no.5 Sohan Singh son of Karam Singh, member of respondent no.4 society for recovery of an amount of Rs.19,216/- (principal) + Rs.7,693/- (interest) and Rs. 260/- (cost), totalling Rs.27,159/- before respondent no.2, who vide his order dated 20.08.1992, appointed respondent no.3 as an Arbitrator to decide the arbitration dispute under Section 55 of the Act. Respondent no.3 impleaded the petitioner as a party at the instance of respondent no.2, although there was no arbitration dispute against the petitioner by respondent no.4 Society for the alleged amount of arbitration dispute. The petitioner was impleaded as a party on the ground that respondent no.5, who as a member of respondent no.4 Society alleged that he has returned the loan amount to the petitioner which has not been accounted for by the petitioner in his loan account. Ultimately arbitrator vide his award dated 06.09.1993 (Annexure P/1) awarded the amount of loan taken by respondent no.5 against the petitioner. Against that award (Annexure P/1), the petitioner preferred an appeal which has been dismissed by respondent no.2 vide order dated 27.12.1995 (Annexure P/2). Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision before respondent no.1, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 07.10.1999 (Annexure P/4). Hence, this writ petition.