JAHG1R CO OPERATIVE STORES LTD Vs. MYSORE CO OPERATIVE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, is filed for quashing the order of the first respondent, the Mysore Co-operative Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in Appeal Nos. 369 and 370 of 1965 which arose out of Dispute No.48 of 1957-58 on the file of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Arbitrator Chickmagalur.

(2.) The petitioner is the Society which instituted Dispute No.48 of 1957-58 against the respondents, 2, 3 and 4 for the recovery of a sum of Rs.11,5000. It is not disputed that these proceedings were initiated by one Mr. Bapat, who was the Director in charge of the Co-operative Stores. The proceedings once ended in ex parte decree, but later on, it was set aside by the Revenue Appellate Tribunal and the matter was remanded to the 5th respondent for disposal in accordance with law. After the remand, the case was posted for hearing on 15-7-1964. The petitioner, who is the Honorary Secretary of the concerned Stores, was served with the notice. But prior to that one H. S. Srikantaiah was appointed as Joint Secretary of the Co-operative Stores and a communication was sent to the 5th respondent stating that notice may be issued to the said Joint Secretary. Later the 5th respondent issued the notice again to the Honorary Secretary for hearing on 28-8-1965. He sent a reply as on the earlier occasion stating that the notice may be sent to the Joint Secretary of the Co-operative Stores. However the case came to be adjourned to 16-9-1965 and then to 17-9-1965, on which date the dispute was dismissed by the 5th respondent.

(3.) It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that he received the endorsement intimating the dismissal of the petition on 27-10-1965 and thereupon he filed an application under Rule 31 of the Mysore Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 on 24-11-1965. In respect of this application, the 5th respondent issued an endorsement directing the petitioner to file his objections before the higher authorities for redress. Therefore, it is clear that the Assistant Regstrar did not deal with the application of the petitioner-the Co-operative Stores-on its merits. He did not go into the question as to whether there was sufficient reason for the absence of the petitioner -Co-operative Stores before him on the day he disposed of the dispute ex parte. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order of the Assistant Registrar in Appeal No.369/65 before the first respondent. The petitioner also filed an appeal against the order dated 17-9-1965 in Appeal No.370/65 disputing the correctness of the ex parte order. By a common judgment, the first respondent has dismissed the two appeals. Against this order of the first respondent, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.