IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 5604 of 2001 (M/S) Kailash Chandra Dalakoti, S/O Late Sri R.C.Dalakoti, R/O Dalakoti Niwas, Kaladhungi Road, Haldwani, District Nainital, Proprietor M/s D.K.Transport Company, Kaladhungi Road, Haldwani, District Nainital. …… Petitioner. Versus 1. Arbitrator/Additional Registrar (ICDP) Co-operative Societies Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. 2. Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Federation Ltd. Lucknow through its Managing Director. … Respondents. Sri S.Dhulia, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Puja Banga, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. Date April 25, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard Sri S.Dhulia, Senior Advocate with Ms. Puja Banga, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and perused the record. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned award dated 24-09-2001 (Annexure No. 1). (ii) Issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case. (iii) Award costs to the petitioner. Briefly stated, facts giving rise to the present writ petition, are that the impugned award dated 24-09-2001 (Annexure No.1) passed by the respondent no.1 has been assailed mainly on 2 the legal ground that after creation of new State of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand), the respondent no.1 had ceased to have jurisdiction to proceed with the Arbitration matter pending before him. The respondent no.1 ought to have transferred the Arbitration Case No. 20 of 1999-2000, U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd. Lucknow Vs. M/s D.K.Transport Co. Kaladhungi Road, Haldwani and others instead of deciding the case himself in view of the provisions of Section 91 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 (for short the Act). The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has contended that in view of Section 91 of the Act, the Registrar Co-operative Societies Uttar Pradesh had no jurisdiction in the matter as on 24-9-2001 and the case stood transferred to the corresponding court, tribunal, authority or officer of the new State of Uttaranchal w.e.f. 9-11-2000 as the arbitration matter exclusively relates to the territory of the State of Uttaranchal. Therefore, the impugned award is wholly without jurisdiction and the arbitrator has committed a manifest error of law as envisaged by Section 91 of the Act. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2, on the other hand, has contended that the P.C.F. Headquarter is situated in Lucknow, hence the arbitration proceeding could have continued in the State of Uttar Pradesh before respondent no.1. Section 91 of the Act reads as under:- “91. Transfer of pending proceedings.-(1) Every proceeding pending immediately before the appointed day before a court (other than High Court), tribunal, authority or officer in any area which on that day falls within the State of Uttar Pradesh shall, if it is a proceeding relating exclusively to the territory, which as from that day are the territories of Uttaranchal State, stand 3 transferred to the corresponding court, tribunal, authority or officer of that State. (2) If any question arises as to whether any proceeding should stand transferred under sub-section (1) it shall be referred to the High Court at Allahabad and the decision of that High Court shall be final. (3) in this section- (a) “proceeding” includes any suit, case or appeal; and (b) “corresponding court, tribunal, authority or officer” in the State of Uttaranchal means- (i) the court, tribunal, authority or officer in which, or before whom, the proceeding would have laid if it had been instituted after the appointed day; or (ii) in case of doubt, such court, tribunal, authority, or officer in that State, as may be determined after the appointed day by the Government of that State or the Central Government, as the case may be, or before the appointed day by the Government of the existing State of Uttar Pradesh to be the corresponding court, tribunal, authority or officer.” Having heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the provision of Section 91 of the Act, this fact is not disputed that the impugned award was made by respondent no. 1 on 24-9-2001 after creation of new State of Uttaranchal. Section 91 of the Act provides that if the proceeding pending a court, tribunal, authority or officer in any area which on that day falls within the State of Uttar Pradesh shall, if it is a proceeding relating exclusively to the territory, which as from that day are the territories of Uttaranchal State stand transferred to the corresponding court, tribunal, authority or officer of that State. The 4 dispute, which is subject matter of arbitration, related exclusively to the territory of the State of Uttaranchal and according to the petitioner, he is registered transporter at Haldwani and has been engaged with the P.C.F. Ltd. in the transport of fertilizer, sugar, wheat etc. between the period 1983 and June 3, 1994 within district Nainital. Dispute was regarding transportation of consignment of fertilizer bags (PPL DAP fertilizer) from Railway Station Haldwani to the PCF Godown at Haldwani by the petitioner from 31-05-1994 to 3-6-1994, which arrived at Haldwani Rail Head on 31-5-1994 as mentioned in paragraph no. 4. An application was also moved by the petitioner before the respondent no.1 on 26-4-2001 copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure 12 to the writ petition, wherein prayer was made for transfer of arbitration matter for disposal to the Registrar concerned at Haldwani. To my mind, since the dispute was in respect transportation of goods from Rail Head Haldwani to PCF godown at Haldwani by the petitioner transfer, which fall exclusively within the territory of State of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand), hence after creation of new State of Uttaranchal, the jurisdiction of the respondent no.1 to proceed further with the arbitral proceeding after the appointed day and to decide the arbitration case ceased in view of the provisions of Section 91 of the Act. The provision is quite clear that the cases/proceeding relating exclusively to the territory of Uttaranchal State, pending immediately before the appointed day before a court, tribunal, authority or officer in the State of Uttar Pradesh, shall stand transferred to the corresponding court, tribunal, authority or officer concerned of the State of Uttaranchal. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 that since the headquarter of the P.C.F. is situated at Lucknow, the respondent no.1 has rightly proceeded with the arbitral proceedings after the creation of new State of Uttaranchal and has rightly passed the impugned award on 24-09-2001 is not acceptable. 5 For the reasons and discussion aforesaid, the impugned award dated 24-09-2001 passed by respondent no. 1 (Annexure No.1) after the appointed day (9-11-2000) on creation of Uttaranchal State is wholly without jurisdiction. The writ petition succeeds and the impugned award is liable to be quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned award (Annexure No.1) is hereby quashed. The respondent no. 1 directed to remit the complete record of Arbitration Case No. 20/1999-2000 U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd. Lucknow Vs. M/s D.K.Transport Co., Kaladhungi Road, Haldwani and others to the appropriate authority of Uttarakhand State, who will decide the said arbitration case. The authority concerned is further directed to conclude the arbitral proceedings expeditiously as far as possible after receipt of the record. Costs easy. All pending applications stand disposed of. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 6 7 8 9