SBCWP NO.7290/07. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7290/2007. Radhey Shyam Agarwal Versus The Rajasthan State Cooperative Tribunal, Jaipur & Ors. Date of Order:- July 16, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Sandeep Mathur for the petitioner. Shri Akhilesh Pareek on behalf of Shri Sanjay Singhal for respondent No.4. ***** BY THE COURT:- Service on respondent No.2 being Arbitrator and respondent No.3 being Election Officer is dispensed with. 2) Matter is heard on merits. 3) Petitioner, who was then General Manager with Baran Nagrik Sahkari Bank Limited, has come up in this writ petition challenging the order passed by the Arbitrator dated 3/10/2002 and the subsequent order of the Cooperative Tribunal dated 23/3/2007 by which his appeal thereagainst was dismissed. 4) Contention of Shri Sandeep Mathur, learned counsel for petitioner is that the SBCWP NO.7290/07. 2 learned Arbitrator has wrongly made an observation in his award/judgment dated 3/10/2002 that the petitioner concealed the fact about deposit of due amount by respondent No.5 and owing to this reason, he was deprived of his right to contest the election. The total amount which was due against respondent No.5 was Rs.46,000/- and which what was pointed out by the petitioner. Learned counsel in this connection invited attention of the court towards Ann.5 which is Statement of Account showing the amount, which is Rs.46,000/-. It is submitted that even respondent No.5 asserted before the Arbitrator that he had deposited only a sum of Rs.18,000/- as the time barred loan and was in possession of the receipt also. Even this deposit was not in the knowledge of the petitioner because he had deposited the amount with the Oil Branch Baran whereas, petitioner was posted as General Manager in the headquarter. Unless, respondent No.5 produced the receipt, petitioner could not be aware of the same. Even if it is accepted that Rs.18,000/- was deposited, yet remaining amount of Rs.28,000/- remained due to be deposited. All these facts were ignored by the Arbitrator as SBCWP NO.7290/07. 3 also by the Tribunal. Even otherwise, unless it is proved that the amount was not due, petitioner as General Manager based his decision on the knowledge that he derived from official record maintained in the headquarter and therefore it cannot be said that he in any manner deliberately or willfully concealed any information which is what has been observed by the learned Arbitrator. No such specific notice was given to the petitioner for making such observation owing to which, petitioner had to suffer because he was suspended and during suspension, retired from service. 5) Shri Akhilesh Pareek, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4-Shri Ram Chand Udaiwal has no argument to make. The contesting party in this writ petition is respondent No.5- Jagdish Kumar Soni, who has chosen not to appear. 6) Consideration of the arguments made by the learned counsel for the parties at the bar and perusing the Statement of Account (Annexure- 5) and the impugned-order, clearly shows that due amount that was shown by the petitioner was Rs.46,000/- as against which, Rs.18,000/- deposited by respondent No.5, who merely SBCWP NO.7290/07. 4 asserted before the Arbitrator that he was in possession of the receipt of deposit of Rs.18,000/-. Unless otherwise proved, it could not be a matter of inference that petitioner would be aware of the deposit in the Branch Office because he based his decision on the information gathered from his own office i.e. head office of the Bank. No malice can be attributed to the petitioner for his decision. Observation although looks to be innocuous but proved detrimental to the interest of petitioner in that he was suspended and had to face all this agony. Those observations, in my view, could not have been made because of the reasons stated above. No specific notice was given to the petitioner to explain about the deposit/non- deposit of such amount. Learned Tribunal has also erred in law in not appreciating the submission made before it in true perspective. 7) Writ petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The adverse remarks referred to above are accordingly expunged. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil