1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 719 OF 2008. Shri Chandrakant Salaskar C/o Irrigation Department, Junta House, Panaji, Goa. .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The Goa State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Head Office, Panaji, Goa. 2. M/s. Chari Enterprises Proprietor Mrs. Surat Alias Vrunda K.Chari, P.O. Parra, Verla, Goa. 3. Shri Shekhar Mahabaleshwar Sangodkar, r/o. H.No.452(2), Atafondem, Moira, Bardez, Goa. 4. The Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies Having office at Camp Court, c/o Goa State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Head Office, Panaji, Goa. 5. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies Having office at Sahakar Shakti, Near High Court, Altinho, Panaji, Goa. ... Respondents. Mr. M.G.S. Khandeparkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V. Rodrigues,Advocate for the respondent Nos.4 and 5. Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, Advocate for the respondent No.1. 2 CORAM :- C. L. PANGARKAR, J. DATE : 5 TH FEBRUARY,2009 . ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule Returnable forthwith. Heard with consent of the parties. 2. This writ petition challenges the order passed by the Registrar of the Cooperative Society whereby he dismissed the appeal preferred under Section 99 filed by the disputant No.2/ petitioner. 3. The facts are as follows : The respondent No.1 herein filed a dispute before the Assistant Registrar for recovery of money. It was alleged by the respondent No.1 that the the opponent No.1 i.e. the respondent No.2 herein had availed a loan which the respondent No.2 did not repay. It is alleged further that the opponent Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. the petitioner and the respondent No.3 were the guarantors and, therefore, they are liable to the claim. 3 4. When the dispute came up before the Assistant Registrar, same lawyer appeared on behalf of the opponents i.e. principal borrower and the guarantors. The Assistant Registrar found that the notices of the dispute, were served on all the opponents since the opponents were being represented by the lawyer. The Assistant Registrar heard the matter and decided it and passed an award in favour of the respondent No.1 i.e. Goa State Cooperative Bank Ltd. Since the award was passed, the opponent No.2 i.e. the present petitioner felt aggrieved and he preferred an appeal under Section 99 before the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies. The main contention that was raised by the petitioner even before the Registrar, was that he was never served with the notice of the dispute and he has not been heard in the matter at all. The Registrar Co-operative Societies, negatived the contention the confirmed the award passed by the Assistant Registrar. The petitioner / opponent No.2 felt aggrieved and preferred this writ petition. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner /opponent No.2 submits that the record would in fact clearly reveal that the opponent No.2 i.e. the petitioner was never served with the notice of the dispute. He submits that the notice that has 4 been returned, would show that all the notices of all the opponents were received by only one person and actually the opponent Nos.2 and 3 were never served. A copy of the said notice, which is placed before me, clearly goes to show that the notice of all the 3 respondents, were received by only one person i.e. the opponent No.1. In view of this, it is very much clear that no notice was personally served on the present petitioner at all. 6. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.1, submits that the Lawyer was appearing for and on behalf of the present petitioner before the Assistant Registrar and he had filed the Vakalatnama. 7. After perusal of the Vakalatnama filed before the Assistant Registrar, it is apparent that the Vakalatnama is not signed at all by the Opponent Nos.2 and 3. The opponent No.1 could not have signed the Vakalatnama for opponent Nos. 2 and 3 since admittedly, he does not hold any power of attorney for the opponent Nos. 2 and 3. Obviously, the opponent Nos. 2 and 3 were not at all represented before the Assistant Registrar. Therefore, the award i.e. passed by the Assistant Registrar can be said to be an ex-parte award. It is 5 obvious that since the notice is not served, no opportunity of being heard was given to the opponent Nos.2 and 3. In the circumstances, I am left with no alternative but to set aside the award to extent of the opponent Nos. 2 and 3. The order passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, is also set aside as against the opponent Nos.2 and 3. The original proceeding stands remitted back to the Assistant Registrar to give an opportunity to the opponent Nos. 2 and 3 to contest the claim before him. After hearing them afresh, the Assistant Registrar may decide the matter afresh. The opponent Nos. 2 and 3 would be at liberty to file written statement in the matter and to tender evidence in the matter. Record and proceedings be sent back immediately to Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies. 8. Rule is made absolute accordingly. C. L. PANGARKAR, J. SMA