CWP-6100/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6100/2010 Paras Jain Vs Satyaveer Singh & others. DATE OF ORDER : 07/05/2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI *** Mr. Ram Kumar Sharma, for petitioner. Mr.Shobhit Tiwari, for respondent No.2-Caveator One of the contentions advanced by counsel for petitioner is that in regard to the election dispute raised initially Mr. Satyaveer Singh was appointed as Arbitrator on 09/03/2010. But after the proceedings were initiated for some time, the order, by which he was appointed as Arbitrator, was cancelled vide order on 05/04/2010 and the Managing Director, Central Cooperative Bank Limited Baran was appointed as Arbitrator but by a subsequent order of the same date i.e. 05/04/2010 the earlier order dt. 05/04/2010 was cancelled and he was allowed to continue as Arbitrator and this fact was recorded by him in the order sheet of 05/04/2010 and the matter was listed for further hearing on 19/04/2010 but by over writing it was changed to 12/04/2010 and the Award impugned was passed, setting aside the election in which he was elected as Chairman of Jhalawar Cooperative Consumer Wholesale Upbhokta Bhandar against which the appeal was preferred before the Tribunal. However, while issuing notice of the appeal preferred before CWP-6100/2010 2 the Tribunal, his application for interim relief, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, has been rejected without assigning any cogent reasons vide order Anx.4 dt. 23/04/2010 against which the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition. Counsel for petitioner submits that in such like matters, where the election has been set aside and the appeal has been preferred, the matter has to be looked into on merits and if no interim order is passed by the Tribunal, the rights of the petitioner, who was an elected representative, certainly be adversely affected. Counsel for respondent No.2-caveator, on the other hand, submits that after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing, the award, impugned in the appeal preferred by the petitioner, was passed and the learned Tribunal, after examining the material on record, has refused the pass interim order vide order dated 23/04/2010. It has been further submitted that the prayer made in the instant writ petition is with regard to assailing the order of the Arbitrator dated 12/04/2010 and there is no prayer for interim relief or questioning the order of the Tribunal rejecting the interim relief prayed for by the petitioner. CWP-6100/2010 3 Taking note of the submissions made and so also the fact that that the election of the petitioner was set aside by the impugned Award dt. 12/04/2010 against which the appeal was preferred where the Tribunal has to re- appreciate the material examined by the Arbitrator but no reason has been assigned while declining to stay the impugned Award, however, in the facts of the instant case, this Court considers it appropriate to stay the operation of the Award dated 12/04/2010 till disposal of the appeal. At this stage, counsel for respondents submits that if the Award impugned remained stayed, the petitioner will not cooperate and it will take time in deciding the appeal before the Tribunal and it has been informed that the matter is coming up before the Tribunal on 20/05/2010. It has also been informed that the respondent No.2-Caveator is the only contesting respondent and the rest of the respondents are not directly concerned with the dispute which has been raised before the Tribunal assailing the Award impugned. Taking note thereof, this Court considers it appropriate to direct the learned Tribunal to finally dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months and it is further made clear that CWP-6100/2010 4 what has been observed by this Court will not come in the way of the Tribunal while deciding the appeal on merits. In the light of what has been observed supra, the writ petition stands disposed of. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. Raghu/p.4/ 6100-CW-2010-final.doc