- (1.) Shri Ajab Singh Inspector, respondent No. 5, was appointed as Administrator of the Chhajli Co-operative Agricultural Service Society Ltd. (hereinafter called the Society). He raised a dispute against the petitioner and reported the matter to the Authorised Registrar, who in turn appointed the said Ajaib Singh as the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator gave the award, a copy of which is Annexure P. 1. This award is in printed form and the points in controversy have not been discussed therein by a speaking order. In Mathra Dass V/s. The State of Punjab and others, 1975 PunLJ 42, B.R. Tuli, J., had an occasion to consider this matter and observed as under :- "I am also of the opinion that the award made by the Arbitrator and upheld by the appellate authority deserves to be quashed for the reason that it does not state the points of difference referred to the Arbitrator for decision and the manner in which he arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner was liable to pay all the amounts as claimed by the Co-operative Society. No form of an award to be made by an Arbitrator under the Act should have been prescribed, as has been done in Appendix 'F' to the Co-operative Societies Rules, 1963, for the reason that, unlike an award under the Arbitration Act, an award under the Co-operative Societies Act must conform to a quasi-judicial decision. Under the Indian Arbitration Act, an award can consist of the points of difference referred to the Arbitrator for decision and his decision thereon. He is not strictly required to give reasons in support of his decision with regard to every dispute referred to him. But an award under the Act is distinguishable from an award under the Arbitration Act. No appeal is allowed against an award made by an Arbitrator under the Arbitration Act while an appeal is allowed against the award made by an Arbitrator under the Co- operative Societies Act. A further revision is also competent to the State Government. It is, therefore, necessary that an Arbitrator, while deciding a dispute referred to him under the Act, must set the items of the dispute and the decisions thereon together with the reasons for those decisions. It may be remembered that an Arbitrator, while determining a dispute between the parties, acts as a quasi-judicial tribunal and his decision is a quasi- judicial one. A quasi-judicial decision must be supported by reasons so that it is shown that the Arbitrator has applied his mind and while deciding a disputed question the process of reasoning for coming to a particular conclusion must be evident from the discussion in the award itself. If that is not done, the appellate authority will not be able to know how the Arbitrator came to the decision under appeal before him. In the case in hand, the Under Secretary, while deciding the appeal, stated that the Arbitrator did not go into any of the points which he enumerated in paragraph 3 of his order and that he did not see the record of Society or the original loan bond and gave an ex parte award merely because the petitioner had not turned up before him at the time given in the notice. Since an appeal is provided against the award, in order to enable the appellate authority to come to the conclusion whether the award has been correctly made or not, he must know how the Arbitrator arrived at his conclusions. In the award made in this case, the Arbitrator even did not mention the items of dispute referred to him. Since the award made by the Arbitrator is not in accordance with law, I have no option but to quash the same. With the quashing of that award, the order passed by the appellate authority shall also fall qua the loan of Rs. 10,340/-."
(2.) I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the learned Judge. I, therefore, allow this petition, quash the award Annexure P. 1 and remand the case to the Arbitrator for a fresh decision in accordance with law.
(3.) Since Shri Ajaib Singh, Inspector was acting as Administrator of the Society, which is a party to the dispute, it looks proper that this controversy should be settled by another Arbitrator appointed by the Authorised Registrar. It is a settled principle of law that a party who has some interest in the matter should not be a judge in its own cause. Even though Ajaib Singh Arbitrator is not personally interested as a creditor, yet as the Administrator of the Society, he is interested in its welfare. Furthermore, justice should not only be done but should also appear to have been done. When the determination of a dispute between a co-operative society and a constituent is entrusted to the Administrator of the Society, even if the latter may decide it in accordance with law, the other party may have a lurking feeling in its mind that decision has been given against it because of the interest of the Arbitrator. In these circumstances, the Authorised Registrar is directed to appoint another Arbitrator.;