C.W.P No. 15854 of 1991 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- C.W.P No. 15854 of 1991 Date of decision:- 20.5.2011 Chhota Singh ... Petitioner Versus The Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Department of Co-operation with headquarter at Chandigarh & Ors. ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Gurnam Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Chhota Singh for the issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned award dated 25.4.1988 Annexure P/3 and the orders dated 24.4.1989 and 4.4.1991 Annexures P/5 and P/6 and for issuance of directions to the respondents to make the recovery, if any, in accordance with law. The petitioner was member of the Shekhpura Co-operative Agricultural Services Society Ltd., Shekhpura (in brief the 'Society'). In that capacity he took a loan of Rs.8396 in the shape of fertilizers to be used for agricultural purposes. In the month of June 1983, he was asked to return that loan amount along with interest of Rs.500/-. Accordingly, he deposited Rs.8000/- as principal amount and Rs.580/- as interest thereon with Major C.W.P No. 15854 of 1991 -2- Singh respondent No.5, who was the Secretary of the Society and in token of having received that amount the said respondent made necessary entry in his pass-book, which had been issued in respect of his account No. 248. That respondent also put his signature against that entry. The society approached the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies for the recovery of Rs.15,210 from him and the matter was referred to the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator pronounced the award dated 25.4.1988 Annexure P/1. Against that award, he preferred an appeal before the Assistant Registrar, but the same was dismissed vide Annexure P/5. Against that order he preferred a revision which was dismissed by the State Government, vide Annexure P/6. Award and the orders have been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that he had brought the factum of the deposit of the loan amount and interest with respondent No.5 to the notice of the arbitrator and had also brought to his notice the entry made in his pass-book, who failed to get that signature of respondent No.5 compared with his specimen signatures from the handwriting expert. No adjournment was granted to him for depositing the expert fee, which amounts to depriving him an opportunity of being heard. The arbitrator did not announce the award in his presence nor that award was conveyed to him subsequently. The appeal was filed by him within limitation after obtaining the certified copies and as such the same could not have been dismissed in limine on the ground that it was barred by time. The records were not properly perused by the Commissioner Appeals, while exercising the powers of the State Government, which amounts to the non- application of the legal mind. Had the signature of respondent No.5 on his passbook compared with the specimen signatures of that respondent, it must C.W.P No. 15854 of 1991 -3- have came out that he had already deposited the loan amount and the interest which has accrued thereon. He was not at fault for not depositing the expert fee as no opportunity was granted to him for that purpose. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to assail the award and the impugned orders on the ground that the petitioner was not afforded proper opportunity to prove the fact that he had repaid the principal amount along with interest. The arbitrator should have adjourned the proceedings to enable the petitioner to deposit the fee of the document expert who was to be examined for proving that entry in the pass-book regarding payment of `8000/- as principal amount and `580/- as interest was signed by respondent No.5 thereby absolving him from liability to pay that amount. The appellate authority was not justified in dismissing the appeal as the petitioner had been able to show that the appeal had been filed within the time. Even the revisional authority did not pass the speaking order and failed to consider the defence of the petitioner in the right perspective. After having perused the impugned award and the orders, I have come to the conclusion that there is no merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. The arbitrator did consider the plea of the petitioner that he had deposited the principal amount and interest with respondent No.5, who was the Secretary of the Society and had called upon him to deposit the fee of the expert for getting the signature of that respondent on his passbook compared with his specimen signatures. The petitioner did not ask for adjournment for depositing the expert fee and made a categorical statement before the arbitrator that he was not ready to C.W.P No. 15854 of 1991 -4- deposit the fee of the expert. After that refusal having been made by the petitioner the arbitrator was not required to adjourn the proceedings to enable him to deposit that fee. It is incorporated in the award itself that the petitioner was present on the day the award was announced. The pleas raised by the petitioner are self-contradictory. If on the one hand he is contending the arbitrator should have adjourned the proceedings for depositing the expert fee then how he is contending at the same time he was not present on that day; as the award was pronounced on that day itself. The appeal was not filed within the prescribed period and appellate authority correctly recorded the finding to that effect. Once that finding was recorded and no prayer was made for condoning the delay, there was no opportunity with the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits. The revisional authority duly considered the arguments, which did not find favour with that authority and by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the order passed by the revisional authority is not a speaking one. No ground is made out for quashing the impugned award and the orders. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. May 20, 2011 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge