AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kamlesh Sharma, J.—Both these writ petitions are between the same parties and involved similar questions of facts and law, as such, these are being disposed of by a common judgment. In C.W.P. No. 64 of 1993 the Petitioner society has prayed for quashing the arbitration proceedings which were initiated at the instance of the Respondent bank and are pending before the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Dharamshala. In C.W.P. No. 271 of 1994 the Petitioner society has challenged order dated 16.12.1993(Annexure P-5) passed by the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Dharamshala in a revision petition pending before him against the order dated 30.9.1993 dismissing their appeal as time barred against the exparte award dated 25.3.1990 holding the Respondent bank liable to pay to the Petitioner society an amount of Rs. 51,361.72 on account of loss of goods pledged and further a sum of Rs. 45,000/- as surcharge besides arbitration cost and interest. The Petitioner society has also prayed for quashing the proceedings of revision pending before the Additional Registrar Co-operative Societies and declaration that award dated 25.3.1990 has become final between the parties and the Respondent bank is liable to pay the award amount in execution thereof.
The facts in brief emerging from the pleadings are that the Petitioner is a co-operative society. It is a member of the Respondent co-operative bank, which had granted it cash credit limit. A dispute arose in respect of the recovery of amount of cash credit limit, which at the instance of the Petitioner society was referred to the arbitration of Shri L.D. Thakur, the then Inspector, Co-operative Societies. On receiving summons the Respondent bank preferred an appeal to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies for quashhing the appointment of Shri L.D. Thakur as Arbitrator on the ground that he was not competent to arbitrate the dispute between the Petitioner society which is a primary co-operative society and the Respondent co-operative bank which is a secondary co-operative society. According to the Respondent bank the competent authority to decide the dispute between it and the Petitioner society is the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, as provided under Rule 89 of the H.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1971(hereinafter called the Rules). Interim orders staying further proceedings before the Arbitrator were not passed, with the result the Arbitrator proceeded with the arbitration, though the Respondent bank had brought to his notice that it had challenged his jurisdiction before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. The appeal of the Respondent bank was not decided and the Arbitrator held the proceedings and gave the award exparte on 25.3.1990, as the Respondent bank failed to appear before him. By this award, which is on record as Annexure P-3 to C.W.P. No. 64 of 1993, the Respondent bank is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 51,361.72 to the Petitioner society as loss of the pledged goods due to its negligence and also amount of Rs. 45,000/- as surcharge/compensation besides Rs. 2,000/- as arbitration cost and interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of award till the date of payment of principal amount of Rs. 51,361.72.
Thereafter, at the instance of the Respondent bank the dispute regarding recovery of its dues against the Petitioner society was referred to the arbitration of Respondent No. 4 Shri Jai Kishan (Arbitrator), Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies(Retd.) by order dated 17.4.1990 passed by the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Dharamshala. On receipt of summons from the said Arbitrator, the Petitioner society felt aggrieved and has filed C.W.P. No. 64 of 1993 for quashing the arbitration proceedings before him on the ground that the earlier arbitration award dated 25.3.1990 has become final between the parties. When the writ petition came up for admission and orders before this Court on 15.1.1993, further proceedings before Respondent No. 4 Shri Jai Kishan (Arbitrator), Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies(Retd.), Dharamshala have been stayed.
The Respondent bank has opposed the writ petition on the ground, inter alia, that the exparte award dated 25.3.1990 is nullity being without jurisdiction. Referring to Rule 89 of the Rules its case is that since it is a secondary society only Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies has the jurisdiction to decide the dispute and Shri L.D. Thakur, who was admittedly an Inspector, Co-operative Societies, had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute. According to the Respondent bank Shri L.D. Thakur, Arbitrator proceeded with the matter despite the objection raised by it and pointing out that it had already filed appeal before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies quashing his appointment as Arbitrator.
The Respondent bank had also filed appeal against the award dated 25.3.1990 before the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Kullu which was dismissed as time barred by order dated 30.9.1993(Annexure P-4 to C.W.P. No. 271 of 1994). The prayer of the Respondent bank that if its appeal was time barred, it might be treated as revision/review, was not accepted by the Appellate Authority. Thereafter, the Respondent bank has filed the revision petition against the order dated 30.9.1993 which is pending for decision before the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Dharamshala. By an interim order dated 16.12.1993 the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Dharamshala has stayed the operation of award dated 25.3.1990, which further gave cause of action to the Petitioner society and it filed C.W.P. No. 271 of 1994. Again, the contention of the Petitioner society is that the award dated 25.3.1990 has become final between the parties, as it has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority by its order dated 30.9.1993 dismissing the appeal of the Respondent bank as time barred. Futher case of the Petitioner society is that no revision lies against the appellate order dated 30.9.1993, as such, the proceedings before the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Dharamshala may be quashed.
The Respondent bank has opposed this writ petition reiterating their stand that award dated 25.3.1990 is a nullity and the Appellate Authority was not justified to dismiss the appeal as time barred without adverting to this aspect of the matter. According to the Respondent bank the revision petition against the order dated 30.9.1993 of the Appellate Authority is maintainable u/s 94 of the H.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1968(hereinafter called as the Act).
This Court has heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Mr. C.L. Kapoor, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner society, has not been able to successfully support the award dated 25.3.1990 that it was passed by a competent authority. Rule 89 of the Rules is very clear, which lays down the Authorities/Officers who are competent to decide the dispute with regard to the kind of societies mentioned therin. Admittedly, the Respondent bank is a secondary society, whereas, the Petitioner society is a primary society, as such, the dispute between them can be decided by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, who is competent to decide the dispute in respect of the secondary society. It is also not is dispute that Shri L.D. Thakur was Inspector, Co-operative Societies, who was competent to decide the dispute between the primary societies and not the dispute between a primary society and a secondary society, as such award dated 25.3.1990 given by him was without jurisdiction and it cannot be executed as prayed by the Petitioner society. It was not proper for Shri L.D. Thakur to proceed with the arbitration proceedings and give exparte award despite the objection raised in respect of his jurisdiction and knowing fully well that the Respondent bank had challenged his appointment as Arbitrator in appeal before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Had he waited for the decision in appeal, litigation between the parties would not have prolonged unnecessarily.
There is no dispute that the appeal was maintainable u/s 93 of the Act before the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Kullu, who has failed to direct himself to the material point that Shri L.D. Thakur, Arbitrator, had no jurisdiction to give award dated 25.3.1990. The appeal has been dismissed as time barred and the prayer of treating the appeal as revision/review was not accepted as it was objected to by the Petitioner society and no reasons have been given therefor. For deciding the question whether the revision is maintainable against the order dated 30.9.1993, Section 94 of the Act is relevant. It is:
Review and Revision: (1) The State Government except in a case in which an appeal is preferred u/s 93 may call for and examine the record of any inquiry or inspection held or made under this Act or any proceedings of the Registrar or of any person subordinate to him or acting on his authority, and may pass thereon such orders as it thinks fit.
(2) The Registrar may at any time,-
(a) review any order passed by himself; or
(b) call for and examine the record of any inquiry or inspection held or made under this Act or the proceedings of any person subordinate to him or acting on his authority and if it appears to him that any decision, order or award or any proceedings so called or should for any reason be modified, annulled or reversed, may pass such order thereon as he thinks fit;
Provided that, before any order is made under Sub-section (1) and (2), the State Government or the Registrar as the case may be shall afford to any person likely to be affected adversely by such orders an opportunity of being heard.
Provided further that every application under Sub-section (1) and (2) to the State Government or the Registrar, as the case may be shall be made within ninety days from the date of the communication of the order sought to be reviewed or revised.
The section empowers the State Government and the Registrar to review and revise certain orders or proceedings made or held under this Act.
Section 94 of the Act is couched in such a language that it gives very wide powers to the Registrar and/or the State Government of revision under which they may call for and examine the record of any inquiry or inspection held or made under this Act or any proceedings held by the Registrar or any person subordinate to him or acting on his authority, as the case may be, and may pass such orders as the State Government and/or the Registrar thinks fit. Mr. L.C. Kapoor, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has emphasised upon the words except in a case in which an appeal is preferred u/s 93'' appearing in the first sentence of Section 94 of the Act, to urge that no revision is maintainable after the decision in appeal. Admittedly, there is no specific bar to file revision after the decision of appeal either in Section 93 or Section 94 or in any other provision of the Act. The words of Section 94 referred to above, only provide for exception that if against the order appeal is preferred, the same matter will not be subjected to revision or review during the pendency of the appeal and these do not suggest that after the appeal is decided, the order of the Appellate Authority, which is part of the proceedings of the Registrar or any person subordinate to him or acting on his authority, is not revisable by the State Government or the Registrar, as the case may be. The purpose of providing this exception is to avoid decision by the Revisional Authority when the Appellate Authority is already seized of the matter but after the decision of the appeal the matter will be open for scrutiny of Revisional Authority, which has been given powers to examine the record and pass appropriate orders as it thinks fit. Any other interpretation of Section 94 of the Act would defeat the very purpose of this Section as envisaged by the Legislature. In a Division Bench judgment or this Court in V.D Kalia v. The Bilaspur District Co-operative Marketing and Consumer Federation Limited, Bilaspur and Ors. 1991 (2) Sim.L.C. 285 the learned Judges have upheld the suo motu powers of revision of the Government to set aside the order of the Registrar which was passed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction holding that it was illegal and without affording an opportunity to the employee whose dismissal was sustained. In view of the ratio of the judgment in this case we hold that after the decision of appeal u/s 93 of the Act revision lies before the State Government or the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, as the case may be.
In view of our findings that the award dated 25.3.1990 is without jurisdiction, the revision petition pending before the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Socities, Dharamshala has become infructuous. However, the arbitration proceedings pending before the Assistant Registrar, Dharamshala are maintainable and will continue. We direct that these arbitration proceedings be completed at an early date, as the matter is under litigation since long.
In the result, there is no merit in these writ petitions and these are dismissed. There is no order as to costs.