Civil Writ Petition No.18675 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18675 of 2010 Date of Decision:28.04.2011 Suresh Jawa ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Narender Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.Pardeep Solath, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Mr.Roop Chand Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent Nos.5 to 8. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The contour of the facts, which requires to be noticed for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that Mohindergarh Cooperative Marketing-cum- Processing Society Limited-respondent No.4(for brevity “the respondent-Society) purchased 95019 bags of mustard-seeds, under the direct control and supervision of the petitioner, during the financial year 2002-2003. Although, the petitioner, who was working as a Manager of the respondent-Society at the relevant time, purchased 95019 bags of mustard-seeds, but there was a shortage of 95 quintals 37 kgs. mustard-seeds, which were stated to have been misappropriated by him (petitioner). 2. Finding no alternative, the respondent-Society raised a dispute for Civil Writ Petition No.18675 of 2010 2 recovering the impugned amount, in lieu of the shortage of mustard-seeds from the petitioner. The Arbitrator, after taking into consideration the entire material on record, accepted the reference petition and directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,24,046/- as principle along with interest @ 18% per annum, till the date of passing the award and with future interest @ 8% per annum till realisation of the amount, by means of impugned award dated 24.09.2004(Annexure P-1). However, the appeal filed by the petitioner was accepted and the case was remanded back to the Settlement Committee by the Deputy Registrar-cum-the Appellate Authority, by way of order dated 29.03.2005(Annexure P-2). 3. Aggrieved by the order(Annexure P-2), the respondent-Society filed the revision petition, which was accepted and the award of the Arbitrator, was restored by the Special Secretary of the Cooperation Department, Haryana-cum- Revisional Authority, by virtue of impugned order dated 23.03.2010(Annexure P-3). 4. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned order(Annexure P-3), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, pleading that the Appellate Authority has rightly accepted his appeal and sent the matter to the Settlement Committee, but the revisional authority fell in error in accepting the revision petition of the respondent-Society. 5. The respondents contested the claim of the petitioner and filed their respective written statements, inter alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the writ petition, locus standi and cause of action of the petitioner. The case set-up be the contesting respondents, in brief, insofar as relevant, was that the respondent-Society purchased 95019 bags of mustard-seeds from Mohindergarh Grain Market on behalf of Hafed. The petitioner was the Manager, In-charge of the respondent-Society and was supposed to dispatch the mustard-seeds, after duly weighment and filling in the bags, to the Hafed Store. Civil Writ Petition No.18675 of 2010 3 The entire work of purchase and dispatch of the mustard-seed bags was the responsibility of the petitioner. As, there was a shortage of 95.37 quintals mustard-seeds in the stock, therefore, the petitioner has misappropriated the amount, in lieu of the shortage and was liable to pay the amount. It will not be out of place to mention here that the respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition. 7. As is evident from the record that the petitioner was working as a Manager of the respondent-Society and was directly/solely responsible for the purchase of mustard-seeds. It was his responsibility to weigh and fill the bags of mustard-seeds and then sent the same to the Hafed Store. It is not a matter of dispute that there was a shortage of 95.37 quintals of mustard-seeds in the stock. 8. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since the Appellate Authority has rightly referred the matter to the Settlement Committee, in pursuance of the instructions dated 14.03.1983(Annexure P-5), so, the revisional authority committed an error in setting aside the appellate order, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. The instructions(Annexure P-5) were not at all applicable in an arbitral proceedings, which were only issued constituting a Sub-Committee, to reconcile the accounts and settlement of all claims between the respondent- Society with Hafed and to scrutinize all bad debts(as per audit reports) and nothing else. Since, the instructions(Annexure P-5) were not at all applicable to the individual petitioner in an arbitral proceedings, so, to my mind, the Appellate Authority slipped into deep legal error in setting aside the award(Annexure P-1) and referring the matter to the Settlement Committee. In this manner, the error committed by the Appellate Authority was corrected by the revisional authority. Therefore, the contrary arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner “stricto Civil Writ Petition No.18675 of 2010 4 sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. 9. There is another aspect of the matter which can be viewed from a different angle. What is not disputed here is that the respondent-Society raised a dispute under Section 103 of the Act. The Arbitrator scrutinized the material on record in the right perspective and passed the impugned award(Annexure P-1). The matter was again examined by the revisional authority, which accepted the claim of the respondent-Society, by virtue of impugned order(Annexure P-3), which in substance is, as under:- “The quantity procure by the Society of mustard seed has not been dispusted. The less weighment has also not been disputed. Only fixing of the responsibility of loss has been disputed. The respondent No.3 who was the Manager of the petitioner Society at the time of procurement and all procurement of mustard seed and its weighment was done under his supervision and control. The whole weighment and filling of bags was done by the labour of the contractor in the presence of respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 was to dispatch the mustard seed bags after weighment to the Hafed store. Other respondents were not given duties in writing. However, their concern in the procurement has not been proved. Respondent No.4 is Accountant and was supposed to maintain accounts, respondent Nos.5 and 7 are Peons and cannot be held liable for such shortages, respondent No.5 is Salesman, whose work was only to dispatch empty bags. The number of bags has not been disputed. Thus, it is the respondent No.3 under whose supervision labour of the contractor, weight and filled the bags and this shortage occurred due to his negligence in the work. Hence, only respondent No.3 can be held responsible. The appeal is allowed and order of DRCS dated 29.03.2005 is hereby set aside and order dated 19.05.2004 of ARCS Mahendergarh is upheld.” 10. Meaning thereby, the Arbitrator as well as the revisional authority have recorded the valid reasons in accepting the claim of the respondent-Society against the petitioner, by means of impugned orders(Annexures P-1 and P-3). Civil Writ Petition No.18675 of 2010 5 Such orders, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court, unless the same are perverse and without jurisdiction. As, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, the impugned orders(Annexures P-1 and P-3) are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 11. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 12. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. 13. Needless to mention here that, in case, it is proved that the amount of Rs.42,640/-, on account of shortage of 32.80 kgs. of mustard-seeds, deposited by Khushi Ram, vide receipt No.964 dated 27.06.2002(depicted in the order, Annexure P-2 of the Appellant Authority) was the part and parcel of the shortage, in question, only then the same amount will be adjusted in the awarded amount and not otherwise. April 28, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE