RAMESH CHAND SHARMA Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash orders Annexures P-1, P-2 and P-4. It is apparent from the records that when dispute had arisen between the petitioner and respondent No. 4, the matter was referred to an Arbitrator, who vide his award dated October 29, 1984 (Annexure P-1) held that the petitioner was under an obligation to pay an amount of Rs. 33912.94 paise as principal amount along with interest at the rate of 14 % per annum and also costs to the tune of Rs. 250/- to respondent No. 4. Petitioner went in appeal, which was dismissed vide order dated April 8, 1985 (Annexure P-2). He also failed in revision on June 26, 1987 (Annexure P-4).

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that when his revision was decided, proper opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner. It has specifically been stated that on that date, four cases of Shri D.V.Sharma, Advocate, were pending before the revisional authority. Shri M.S. Bedi, Advocate, had appeared for Shri Sharma and made a request for adjournment. Three cases were adjourned. However, revision petition of the petitioner was dismissed on merits. By referring to that fact, it has been argued that as Shri Bedi had not argued the matter, the revisional authority was not justified in passing the order under challenge. This Court feels that the argument raised is not tenable. The officer, who passed order in revision, has not been impleaded as a party in person and no malafide has been alleged against him. If three cases were adjourned on request, there was no occasion for the said officer not to adjourn the fourth case. Furthermore, affidavit of Shri Bedi has not been put on record to support the averment made in this writ petition. On merits also, petitioner has no case. Award was passed on the basis of a report/signed statement of the petitioner, wherein he had admitted that he had not deposited the amount in the accounts of the Society after recovering the same from the share-holders. Shri Parashar has argued that as a matter of fact, the petitioner had deposited the amount in the bank account of the respondent Society. This fact was looked into by the appellate authority, as well as the revisional authority and the contention was rejected, being contrary to the record. This Court feels that no case is made out for interference in this writ petition. Dismissed.