CWP No.20618 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.20618 of 2009 Date of Decision: 15.7.2010 Darshan Singh ……Petitioner VERSUS Addl. Registrar Co-operative Societies, Punjab and others ……Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. Harpreet Singh, Advocate for Mr. M.K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Arti- cles 226/227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 4.5.2009 passed by the Addl. Registrar Cooperative Societies, Pun- CWP No.20618 of 2009 -2- jab, order dated 24.10.2008 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Coop- erative Societies, Patiala and order dated 19.4.2006 passed by the Asstt. Registrar Cooperative Societies, Nabha. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that petitioner took a loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- from the Patiala Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Tehsil Nabha, Distt. Patiala – respondent No.4 for purchas- ing vehicle. Petitioner did not discharge his liability that is why a ref- erence was made under Section 55/56 of Punjab Cooperative Socie- ties Act, 1961. In the arbitration proceedings, Mr. Diwakar Arora, Advocate appeared for the petitioner and thereafter he did not ap- pear and ultimately Award under Section 63 of the Punjab Coopera- tive Act, 1961 was passed vide order dated 19.4.2006 by the Asstt. Registrar Cooperative Societies, Nabha. Feeling aggrieved from the Award, petitioner preferred an appeal which was heard by the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Patiala. The main argument ad- vanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner before the Appellate Authority was that after taking entire amount from the petitioner, an NOC certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner which was pro- duced before the transport authorities and relying on the NOC, en- dorsement of hypothecation was deleted from the record. Appellate Authority ultimately dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner vide order dated 24.10.2008. Petitioner thereafter filed revision petition CWP No.20618 of 2009 -3- under Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 which too was dismissed vide impugned order dated 4.5.2009. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that since NOC was issued by the Bank, hence, no amount can be said to be outstanding against the petitioner. His second argument is that after absence of Sh. Diwakar Arora, Advocate, learned Arbitrator should have issued fresh notice to the petitioner and after due serv- ice on the petitioner, matter should have proceeded further. Hence, Award passed by the learned Arbitrator in the absence of learned Counsel for the petitioner is not legal. 4. This is undisputed that before the Asstt. Registrar Coop- erative Societies, Nabha Sh. Diwakar Arora, Advocate appeared on behalf of the petitioner. He took plea before the learned Arbitrator that NOC was issued in favour of the petitioner, hence, no recovery can be made. Although thereafter Sh. Diwakar Arora, Advocate stopped appearing but fact remains, he was representing the peti- tioner. Hence, there is no question of issuing fresh notice to the peti- tioner. In the appeal, Sh. Prem Chand Joshi, Advocate had ap- peared on behalf of the petitioner. Sh. Prem Chand Joshi, Advocate also raised argument before the Appellate Authority that NOC was is- sued by the Bank, hence, no recovery can be ordered by the Bank. Learned Appellate Authority granted ample opportunities to Sh. Prem Chand Joshi, Advocate to produce alleged NOC issued by the Bank. CWP No.20618 of 2009 -4- Despite of opportunities being granted, no copy of the NOC was pro- duced before the Appellate Authority and ultimately Appellate Author- ity heard the appeal and dismissed the same. Thereafter in revision petition also the same point was raised that NOC was issued by the Bank, hence, no recovery can be made. Before the Revisional Authority also, a copy of the said NOC was not produced. 5. Even in this Court on being asked, learned Counsel for the petitioner is not able to produce a copy of the said NOC. Taking of loan is admitted and the only defense that NOC was issued is not proved. No other illegality or infirmity is pointed out in the impugned judgment. 6. Petition is devoid of merit, hence, is dismissed. ( ALOK SINGH ) 15th July, 2010 JUDGE ashish