CHHOTU RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner was the President of the Beri Nav Bharat Ex -Servicemen Cooperative Transport Society Ltd., Beri, District Rohtak. The said society went in liquidation prior to 1976 and a liquidator was appointed during the winding up proceedings of the Cooperative Society. As an amount of Rs. 10,319/ - alongwith interest was due from the President and another member Sardar Singh Gaur who is the 4th respondent, a dispute was raised by the Liquidator. The dispute was referred to the Arbitrator who passed an award on 21.6.1977 making the petitioner and Sardara Singh Gaur liable to pay the amount of Rs. 10,319/ - alongwith interest. Both of them filed an appeal to the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rohtak, on 11.11.1977. The said appeal was dismissed as barred by time. A further revision was filed by them to the Joint Registrar (Cooperation) who also dismissed the appeal confirming the orders of the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies. Therefore, the petitioner field this writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the award and the consequential orders on appeal and revision.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Arbitrator is the same person who had been appointed as Liquidator. Therefore, he was having a dual charge and he could not decide the arbitration proceeding's. He further contended that the award passed by the Arbitrator was an ex -parte award and he had no knowledge of the award and on coming to know of the award he applied for a copy of the same and filed appeal after obtaining a copy of the order on appeal. Therefore, the appeal filed by him was within time. He further stated that no amount was due from the petitioner, therefore, the award is liable to be set -aside.

(3.) The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Arbitrator was also the Liquidator, is without foundation. The record shows that one Mahender Singh was appointed as Liquidator while Kurra Ram was appointed as Arbitrator to decide the dispute. The award (Ann. P.1) itself clearly shows that it was passed in the presence of Mahender Singh, Liquidator who is the Sub -inspector of Cooperative Society, Beri. In appeal (Ann. P.2) also Mahinder Singh, Sub -Inspector was shown as the Liquidator of the society. It is not stated in the writ petition that Kurra Ram who was appointed as Arbitrator was also acting as Liquidator. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel that the same person who acted as Liquidator was also appointed as Arbitrator and on that ground the proceedings are liable to be set -aside is liable to be rejected as there is no factual foundation for the same.