AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shripat Rao Palnitkar, J.—This is a petition for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari and Prohibition under Article 226 of the Constitution directed against the order of the Registrar, Co operative Societies.
Much of our valuable time was unnecessarily wasted due to the reason that both the counsel of the parties were under a misapprehension as to the facts of the case.
The brief facts of the case are that some money was due by the Petitioner to the Co-operative Society at Nirmal as the price of jaggery sold to him by the Society. The matter was referred to arbitration u/s 42-A, Hyderabad Co-operative Societies Act to the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies who nominated the Assistant Revenue Officer for that purpose; that officer after holding a necessary enquiry made an award on 25th Meher 1358-F. holding that an amount as mentioned in the award was due from the Petitioner.
Being aggrieved by that award, the Petitioner instituted an appeal before the Registrar u/s 42-B of the Act. The Registrar by his letter dated 21-1-1950 directed his nominee to send his report with regard to the objections raised by the Petitioner. The report was accordingly made and an explanation was given and the Joint Registrar upheld the award on 17-10-1950 and the same was sent back for execution. We have ascertained these facts from the record.
The learned advocate for the Petitioner, sort Bhanwarlal Jain argued that the award in question was set aside by the Registrar and the case was remanded for further trial to his nom nee, namely, the Revenue Assistant. The advocate complained that after the remand the Arbitrator recorded the statement of the Petitioner and simply took his signature upon his statement and the award; that there was no fresh award I and the old award on the basis of which execution is sought has no legal existence and being, a nullity it cannot be executed.
On the facts stated above the Applicants argument is futile. There was no order setting aside the award at any time. The Applicant apparently admitted his liability in respect of the principal sum as also the fact that according to J the custom of jaggery trade the money must be paid within 15 days. His signatures on the award were taken in token of his acceptance and there is no room for the contention that the award has no existence.
Another argument raised by Shri Jain was that u/s 42-A of the Act, a reference for arbitration could only be made when there was a dispute between a member and the Society and that he did not enter into the transaction as as member. This allegation also has no force in view of the statement of the Petitioner recorded by the Arbitrator dated 10-9-1950 in which the Petitioner accepted the contention of the Society that the amount was due by him. Indeed it would seem that he never contended in that statement that he did not enter into that transaction as a member.
A third improvised contention was advanced by Shri Jain alleging that the Hyderabad Co-operative Societies Act No. 2 of 1323-F. was void and not enforceable as it did not receive that sanction of H.E.H. the Nizam which was necessary. The said Act was sanctioned by the then Prime Minister in Meher 1323-P. and the Prime, Minister was empowered in those days to accord sanction to such an enactment by virtue of the provisions of the Hyderabad Legislative Council Regulation No. 3 of 1309-F. Section 49 of the Regulation lays down the mode of enforcement of the Bills passed by the then Legislative Council It provides that the Act will come into force after receiving the sanction of the Prime Minister if it does not relate to any matter referred to in Clause (2) of Section 34 of the Regulation. If it is a Bill or Act covering any matter mentioned in Clause (2) of Section 34 of tike Regulation, then only the assent of His Highness the Nizam was necessary for its coming into force. On a reading of Clause (2) of Section 34 of the Regulation, it is clear that the Hyderabad Co-operative Societies Act is not one of the subjects mentioned in the said Clause. Therefore it is fairly clear that the sanction of the Prime Minister was sufficient to make the Act a valid and enforceable enactment. This contention of the Petitioner also therefore fails.
No question as to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator has been raised nor does it arise in this case. There is no violation of the principles of natural justice, indeed not even failure of justice. This writ petition must therefore be dismissed and it is dismissed accordingly with casts Hearing fee is Rs. 50/-.