IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 15924 of 2009 Date of Decision: 15.10.2009. P.D. Gupta --Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. K.K. Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Notice of motion. Mr. P.C. Goyal, Addl. A.G., Punjab has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents-State. The petitioner was working as Sub Inspector, Audit and on deputation as Manager with the respondent no.4-society. The said society initiated arbitration proceedings under sections 55-56 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act against the petitioner for recovery of certain amount. An ex-parte award was passed by the Arbitrator on 27.4.1982 and appeal preferred also came to be dismissed on 7.2.1983. Thereafter, a revision petition filed was, however, allowed vide order dated 5.4.1985 and the case was remanded back to the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Mansa for fresh decision. The Assistant Registrar on remand passed fresh order dated 14.9.1987. In the meantime petitioner had deposited some amount pursuant to the order of Deputy Secretary in appeal. The petitioner filed arbitration case for recovery of the amount from the society. The claim of the petitioner was allowed by the Arbitrator vide award dated 2.12.2005 with interest. Respondent no.4 filed an appeal CWP. No. 15924 of 2009 -2- against the said order along with the application for condonation under Section 68 (1) (h) of the aforesaid Act. Respondent no.3 vide his order dated 20.7.2009 has allowed the appeal and remanded the case for fresh hearing by appointing a fresh Arbitrator. It is alleged that the petitioner applied for the copy of the order dated 20.7.2009 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Mansa but the same has not been issued. The application of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 24.9.2009 passed by respondent no.3. Petitioner is aggrieved of the aforesaid order. The impugned order is patently illegal and liable to be set aside. This petition is accordingly allowed and respondent no.3 is directed to supply a copy of the order dated 20.7.2009 to the petitioner in accordance with rules by charging the requisite copy fee etc. within a period of two weeks. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 15.10.2009 lucky