V. K. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) THE two petitioners, Abdul Jamil Khan and Abdul Khalil Khan in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, are brothers. THEy have approached this Court for relief against the action of the respondents, namely, the Sahkari Ganna Samiti, Rampur and the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U. P. Lucknow as well as the Recovery Officer, Cane Department, Rampur and the cane production Inspector Rampur in trying to sell off the land holding of the petitioners for realisation of the amount of three awards which were made under rule 115 of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Rules framed under the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act 1912 by resort to the procedure provided in section 92 of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965.
(2.) IT appears that three awards dated August 31, 1967, December 30, 1967 and March 26, 1968 were made by the Arbitrator in a dispute initiated by the Sahkari Ganna Samiti, Rampur. Those awards have become final. The petitioners were served with notices by the Recovery Officer calling upon them to deposit the amounts of the awards failing which the property of the petitioners was to be sold for realisation of those amounts. These notices were followed by orders of attachment of the holdings of the two petitioners made on December 3, 1973. By a separate notice of the same date the property which had been placed under attachment was directed to be sold on January 25, 1974. The petitioners filed objection before the Recovery Officer alleging, inter alia, that they are not liable for payment of any amount under the alleged awards which were made without service of any notice upon them while proceedings were pending before the Arbitrator. The objection also was that the first petitioner had never agreed to be a surety as had been mentioned in the awards. The Recovery Officer declined to go into the merits of the objection because in his opinion such objections were not competent before him and he could not ignore the awards. This decision was rendered by the Recovery Officer on January 16, 1974. Therefore, the petitioners came to this Court. The first submission of Sri Vishnu Sahai appearing for the petitioner is that the awards having been passed behind the back of the petitioners and without notice to them were a nullity and could not be enforced against the petitioners. He has drawn our attention to the averments made in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the petition wherein it has been asserted that no notice whatsoever was served upon the two petitioners while the matter was being dealt with by the Arbitrator. The respondent have controverted these averments by saying that notices were actually served upon the two petitioners and have drawn our attention to the recital in the awards that the petitioner had not appeared inspite of notices having been served upon them. It is obvious that the fact whether notices were actually served upon the two petitioners before the awards were made is highly disputed between the parties and it is not possible for us, in these summary proceedings to go into the correctness or otherwise of the claim of the petitioners in this respect. We are not inclined to accept the submission that the three awards were not enforceable against the petitioners as they have been made without notice to them.
(3.) THE next submission of Sri Vishnu Sahai which, in our opinion, is of substance may now be noticed. THE submission is that the proceedings culminating in the awards were indubitably initiated under the provisions of the 1912 Act and in respect of the first two awards they had come to a conclusion prior to the enforcement of the 1965 Act which was enforced with effect from January 28, 1968 through a notification dated December 30, 1966. As such, the provisions of section 92 of the 1965 Act which were sought to be involved by the respondent were not available to them. The first two awards, as seen earlier, were made on August 31, 1967 and December 30, 1967 respectively, i. e. before the enforcement of the 1965 Act. There is nothing in the 1965 Act to lead us to the view that these awards could be enforced with the aid of section 92 of the Act by attachment and sale of the property of the petitioners by the Registrar or any officer authorised by him. Section 134 of the 1965 Act, which deals with the repeals etc. does not permit the enforcement of an award made under the earlier Act by attachment and sale of the property of the petitioners by the Registrar. It is only section 6 of U. P. General Clauses Act which can be invoked by the respondents in terms of sub-section (1) of section 134 of the 1965 Act. Section 6 of the U. P. General Clauses Act, insofar as it is material, reads;- "6. Effect of repeal where any Uttar Pradesh Act repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not- (a)............... ............... (b)............... ............... (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed: (d)............... ............... (e) affect any remedy, or any investigation or legal proceeding commenced before the repealing Act shall have come into operation in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid; and any remedy may be enforced and any such investigation or legal proceeding may be continued and concluded, and any such penalty, forfeiture, punishment imposed as if the repealed Act had not been passed.;