JUDGMENT
T. Chatterjee, J.
1. This writ petition is moved with notice upon the respondents.
2. Mr. Kalyan Bandyopadhyay has entered appearance on behalf of the Private Respondent No. 2, Kamta Prasad Singh. Mr. Dasgupta has appeared on behalf of the State-respondents.
3. During the pendency of the writ application, a supplementary affidavit has been filed which shall be kept on record. A copy of the same has been served upon the respondents.
4. By consent of parties, appearing before me this writ application is taken up for hearing.
5. The writ petitioner No.l is a Cooperative Society duly registered in accordance with the provisions of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, and the writ petitioner No.2 is a Chairman of the Board of Administrators of the Baldyabati Sheorafull Cooperative Bank Ltd (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Cooperative’) who is also the writ petitioner No. 1 in this writ application. The respondent No.2 Sri. Kamta Prasad Singh applied for an overdraft loan of Rs. 90.000 on 2nd of August, 1973. The said loan was sanctioned by the Board of Directors and the limit of the loan was extended to Rs.2 lacs in a meeting of the Board held on 24th of February, 1974. Kamta Prasad Singh failed to pay the loan and the writ
petitioners filed a dispute case on 31st March, 1983 being Dispute Case No. 3 of 1983-84. The Cooperative Development Officer who was appointed as Arbitrator heard and finally disposed of the aforesaid dispute case by passing an award on 28th March, 1987. On 30th March, 1993, Kamta Prasad Singh filed an objection to an application for rectification of certain errors in the said award, but the said prayer of Kamta Prasad Singh was rejected on the ground that the award had already been filed and so he had no power in law to make any correction therein.
In the meantime, the writ petitioners started proceedings for execution of the said award by filing a certificate case before the Assistant Registrar of the Cooperative Society, Hooghly under the Public Demand Recovery Act. On 14th March, 1993, the petitioners filed an application before the Assistant Registrar of the Cooperative Society, Hooghly praying for correction to be made in the ward dated 28th March, 1987. The Assistant Registrar of the Cooperative Society, Hooghly thereafter appointed one Sri Kiran Chandra Bhattacharyya as Arbitrator under section 96(1)(c) of the West Bengal Cooperative Society Act, 1983 to settle the disputes. By an order dated 7th of August, 1995, the Cooperative Development Officer has allowed the correction of the award in the manner the writ petitioners had asked for. Against this award, Kamta Prasad Singh had filed an appeal which been registered as U/R Appeal No. 90 of 1992 before the West Bengal Cooperative Tribunal. Since the appeal was not filed within time, application for condonation of delay has been filed which has not yet been disposed of.
6. It is not in dispute that from time to time, limited interim order of stay was granted by one member of the West Bengal Cooperative Tribunal and the said interim order is still continuing.
7. Before me, Mr. Bhattacharyya, appearing for the writ petitioner, has raised a jurisdlctlonal issue. A learned single member of the West Bengal Cooperative Tribunal has passed limited interim orders from time to time on the application filed by the writ petitioner in the pending appeal and the application for condonation of delay. It is contended before me that the single member of the said Tribunal had no Jurisdiction to pass such interim order in favour of the private respondent No.2. This submission of Mr. Bhattacharyya has been contested by Mr. Bandhyopadhyay, appearing on behalf of the private respondent. The question, therefore, is whether the learned single member of the Tribunal was competent to pass the interim order in the appeal. In my view, Mr. Bhattacharyya is justified in his submission that such power is not conferred with the single member of the West Bengal Cooperative Tribunal. In the case of Konnagar Samabay Bank Limited v. Nilmant Banerjee and another, 1995(2) CLJ, Page 339, a learned Judge of this court held that the single member of the Tribunal which is constituted under the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act cannot have any jurisdiction to pass any order in an appeal filed under the Act. However, Mr. Bandhyopadhyay, appearing for the private respondent relies on a Supreme Court decision in the case of Indermont Kirtipaul v. Union of India and others. and contends that it is not open to the writ petitioners to raise the plea regarding lack of jurisdiction of the member to pass any order on any application or appeal
or to pass any order of stay during the pendency of the appeal as the writ petitioners did not raise any objection before the said member questioning his jurisdiction to entertain the application for stay. It is true that from the order sheet of the pending appeal, it appears that some of the orders were passed without any objection, but It appears from the order dated 10th of April 1997, objection was raised by the writ petitioners in the matter of extension of interim order by a single member of the Tribunal. In the case of Konnagar Samabay Bank Ltd v. Nilmant Banerjee and another, 1995 [2) CLJ 339, a learned Judge of this court held that the single member of the Tribunal cannot have any jurisdiction to pass any order on any appeal pending before the Tribunal. Therefore, it is a case of initial lack of jurisdiction of the single member of the Tribunal. The Supreme Court decision in the case of Indermont Kirtipaul v. Union of India, and others, on which Mr. Bandyopadhyay relies, would not be of any help to the private respondent. In that case it was held that when the member of the Tribunal would dispose of which matter is one of administrative convenience and it does not relate to his jurisdiction.
8. In view of the aforesaid decision of this court in the case of Konnagar Samabay Bank Ltd. v. Nilmani Banerjee and another, 1995 (2) CLJ 339. I must hold that the single member of the Tribunal has no Jurisdiction to pass any order of stay, in the pending appeal.
9. That apart, in my view, the question of grant of interim stay on the application for stay shall not arise at all until and unless the delay in filing the appeal is condoned by the Tribunal.
10. For the reasons aforesaid, this writ application is allowed and the interim orders passed by one member of the Tribunal are vacated. The application for stay shall be disposed of by the Cooperative Tribunal within four weeks from the date of disposal of the application for condonation of delay which shall be disposed of as early as possible.
11. It is made clear that it will be open to the Tribunal to pass any Interim order on the application for stay after the application for condonation of delay is disposed of.
There will be no order as to costs.
12. Application allowed