JUDGMENT
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.
1. The
above writ petition has been filed by H. P. State Co-operative Marketing and Consumer Federation Ltd. under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the order dated 24-12-1996 of the Joint Secretary (Co-operation) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, respondent No. 2 in case No. 30 of 1996 and second order dated 30-12-1998 of the Additional Secretary (Co-operation) marked Annexure P-13 rejecting the review petition of the petitioner-Federation against the order dated 24-12-1996.
2. Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Marketing and Consumer Federation Ltd. (for short HIMFED-petitioner) herein is a society registered under the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act. 1968. First respondent Shri Bhagmal was working as Salesman/Store Keeper of HIMFED-petitioner at Hamirpur, District Hamirpur. He was charged with responsibility of maintenance of stock account receipts and sales of various kinds of fertilizers and cement. In the year 1983, the Area Manager inspected the godons three in number of HIMFED in Hamirpur which were under the custody of first respondent. The Area Manager had found that the fertilizers and cement bags were not properly stocked in these godowns and there were complaints of shortage of fertilizers and cements. He had, therefore telephonically informed the head office at Shimla about hopeless State of stocks lying in the godowns of HIMFED and to take immediate action. The complaint regarding shortage of fertilizers and cements had also been lodged to the District Administration and the Deputy Commissioner, therefore, got all the three godowns of HIMFED at Hamirpur sealed on 31-7-1983. Thereafter detailed physical verification of stocks inside the store after counting and weighing of cement and fertilizer bags was completed on 11-8-1983 resulting shortage of cement. Urea and Can fertilizers worth Rs. 82.193.50. HIMFED-petitioner asked 1st respondent to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,67.134.65 on account of loss of the fertilizers and cements together with interest
through notice dated Ist May, 1989, but according to HIMFED-petitioner the Ist respondent has not replied to the notice and failed to deposit the said amount.
3. The HIMFED-petitioner filed Case No. 33 before the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Federation). 4th respondent herein who was exercising the powers of Arbitrator for the recovery of the abovesaid amount. The Ist respondent presented himself before the 4th respondent on 5-12-1989 and filed a written statement challenging the authority and Jurisdiction of the Arbitrator and it appears that he had raised certain other irrelevant allegations against other officials of HIMFED. He also stated that in future 4th respondent should not call him and his surety unless those officials have not been placed under suspension. However, he seems to have not defended his case against the shortage which was found against him. The 4th respondent proceeded with the case in the absence of Ist respondent and passed ex parte award in favour of the HIMFED-petitioner and against the Ist respondent for Rs. 1,82,741.85. The 4th respondent passed the ex parte award on 29-12-1989 copy of which has been placed on record and marked Annexure P-1. Ist respondent in the meantime was tried for commission of an offence under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code. He was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Hamirpur on 31-3-1986 and on appeal his conviction and sentence was confirmed by Sessions Judge, Hamirpur on 8-3-1990. The Ist respondent challenged his conviction and sentence by way of Criminal Revision No. 13 of 1990 in the High Court which was allowed by learned single Judge on 22-10-1992 setting aside the conviction and sentence of 1st respondent and acquitted him of the charge. Against the acquittal order of the Ist respondent, the State of Himachal Pradesh filed Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India which came to be dismissed on 1-5-95.
4. The Ist respondent thereafter filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 1246/93 in this Court seeking direction to the HIMFED-petitioner for payment of arrears of salary etc. due to him. In its reply affidavit HIMFED-petitioner had submitted that in pursuance of award
dated 29-12-1989, a sum of Rs. 1,82,741.85 together with interest of Rs. 80,000/- and future interest @ 12% per annum was payable by the 1st respondent and as such the Ist respondent could not be released the arrears of his salary. HIMFED-petitioner also alleged that the Ist respondent filed second CWP No. 56 of 1995 challenging his dismissal order dated 9-1 -1995 which was contested by the HIMFED alleging that in pursuance to the arbitration award dated 29-12-1989, a sum of Rs. 2,04,114.85 paise was pending for recovery from the Ist respondent and proceedings for realization of the said amount were pending before the Collector as arrears of land revenue. The Ist respondent was well aware of the award of the 4th respondent and he filed an appeal against the award before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies and the Registrar vide his order dated 11-7-1990 had informed Ist respondent that his appeal was not maintainable before him and the Ist respondent should approach the Appellate Authority in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 133 of the H.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1971. It is also stated that the Ist respondent was grossly negligent and did not challenge the order of the 4th respondent till 6-11-1996 when an appeal to the Joint Secretary Co-operation (respondent No. 2) accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and also an application for stay of the execution of the award came to be filed. The Ist respondent also challenged in the said appeal the order passed by the Managing Director of HIMFED dated 13-2-1986 whereby he was removed from service. HIMFED-petitioner alleged that second respondent vide his order dated 24-12-1996 has partly dismissed the appeal against the order of the Managing Director dated 13-2-1996 but he has condoned the delay in filing the appeal against the award of the Arbitrator and stayed the operation of the award. The review petition filed by the HIMFED-petitioner before the Secretary (Cooperation) 3rd respondent under Section 94 of the H.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1968 against the order of the 2nd respondent came to be dismissed by the Addl. Secretary dated 30-12-1998. HIMFED-petitioner has challenged the impugned order marked Annexure P-11 whereby the application of
the Ist respondent for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the award of the 4th respondent was allowed and further staying the operation of the award and as well order marked Annexure P-13 dated 30-12-1998 of the Addl. Secretary (Co-operation) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh dismissing the review petition by means of this writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that the 2nd respondent has passed the order mechanically and without application of mind to condone the delay of about more than six years without the 1st respondent explaining the cause for delay challenging the award of the 4th respondent before the Competent Authority within period of limitation and the joint appeal filed against the two orders dated 29-12-1989 and 13-2-1996 could not be entertained and decided after the expiry of such a long period.
5. In opposition to the writ petition a joint reply on behalf of respondents 2 to 4 has been filed by Sh. C.R.B. Lalit, Addl. Secretary (Co-operation) to the Govt. of Hlmachal Pradesh in which it has been stated that it is well settled principle of law that no one can be condemned unheard before passing any order against such person and the Ist respondent had preferred statutory appeal against the ex parte award dated 29-12-1989 before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies in July, 1990, but the Ist respondent did not receive any reply from the Registrar, Co-operative Societies returning his appeal being not maintainable before him. It has been admitted that the appeal filed by the Ist respondent before the 2nd respondent against ex parte award dated 29-12-1989 was time-barred and the sufficient cause shown by the Ist respondent in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal beyond limitation was found satisfactory by the 2nd respondent while allowing the said application. The respondents have stated that the Appellate Authority has exercised the jurisdiction properly and validly after taking into consideration the circumstances by which the Ist respondent was prevented from assailing the award of the 4th respondent within limitation as the Ist respondent was pursuing the criminal trial for the commis-
sion of the offence under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code regarding the alleged misappropriation of the fertilizers and cement bags for which he was proceeded in the arbitration proceedings. The 2nd respondent taking into consideration the ultimate acquittal of the Ist respondent by the Hon’ble High Court and Special Leave Petition which came to be dismissed on 1-5-1995 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court filed by the State of Hlmachal Pradesh against the acquittal of the Ist respondent felt satisfied that since Ist respondent has been acquitted by the Court, therefore, the case needs in depth examination about the correctness and validity of the ex parte award of 4th respondent passed against the Ist respondent. In nutshell the defence of these respondents in their reply is that the application of the Ist respondent for condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been allowed after applying its mind by the 2nd respondent in the interest of justice.
6. In his reply the 1st respondent raised preliminary submissions and stated that the 2nd respondent had elaborately stated the reason for condoning delay in preferring the appeal beyond the period of limitation and he has exercised the jurisdiction vested in him. He has stated that it is well settled law that the public authority in all morality and justice, should not take up such a plea of limitation to defeat a just claim of the citizen and it is high time that public authorities adopt the practice of not relying upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of citizens and should see that fair and just decision is taken by the authorities concerned. It is also submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable and the HIMFED-petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition. He also submitted that the 4th respondent passed ex parte award on 29-12-1989 without affording sufficient opportunity to him. The subject-matter of the award was also the same for which he was prosecuted in criminal proceedings which at last culminated in the order dated 1-5-1995 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India when Special Leave Petition came to be dismissed against the order of acquittal passed by the learned single Judge of this Court on 22-10-1992 in
favour of Ist respondent. The 3rd respondent has sought to support the order of the 2nd respondent by which the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal moved by the Ist respondent was allowed. It is denied by the Ist respondent that the 2nd respondent has overlooked and ignored the material placed by the HIMFED-petitioner in opposition to the application for condonation of delay and also the stay application as the 2nd respondent was fully satisfied that the 1st respondent has made out sufficient cause for condonation of delay and staying the operation and execution of the impugned award.
7. Two sets of rejoinder came to be filed by the HIMFED-petitioner to the reply, affidavits of the respondents in which it has been stated that the 2nd respondent has not exercised his jurisdiction for condonation of delay as the 1st respondent had mis-represented the facts on wholly false excuses for condoning the delay and thereby miscarriage of justice has been caused to the HIMFED-petitioner.
8. We have heard Mr. K.D. Sood, learned counsel for the HIMFED-petitioner, Mr. Sanjay Karol, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondents 2 to 4 and Mr. Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. The learned counsel on both sides have made their submissions based upon the averments made in the pleadings.
9. It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent filed joint appeal which has been numbered as Case No. 30/96 before the 2nd respondent challenging the award dated 29-12-89 of 4th respondent marked Annexure P-1 whereby the Ist respondent has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,82,741.85 paise on account of shortgage of fertilizers and cement bags. In addition to the principal amount, the interest of Rs. 80,000/- was also allowed. It is undisputed that the said award was passed ex parte when the 2nd respondent had absented himself after 5-12-89 when on the said date he had submitted his written statement in which he has not defended his case against the shortage of fertilizers and cement bags for which he was given notice dated May 1, 1989 by HIMFED-petitioner. These facts are borne out from the award/order of the 4th respondent, The defence of the Ist respondent in his written statement before the 4th respondent was that the 4th respondent had no power to hear the case and raised other irrelevant defence against few other officials of the HIMFED-petitioner and also stated that in future the 4th respondent exercising the powers of an Arbitrator should not call him and his surety unless those officials were not placed under suspension. The Ist respondent was dismissed from service by the Managing Director of the HIMFED-petitioner w.e.f. 25/26-6-89 vide order No. Sf-I(122)82-2741-42 on the ground of conduct which led to his conviction on a criminal charge. After his conviction and sentence was set aside by the High Court and he was acquitted of the charge, hts dismissal order from service was set aside by the Competent Authority and accordingly he was reinstated and posted as Store-Keeper at HIMFED store at Nauradhar in Sirmour District with immediate effect. Ist respondent appears to have filed appeal before Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Himachal Pradesh dated 20th June, 1990 against the ex parte award dated 29th December, 1989 passed by the 4th respondent in the arbitration proceedings. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies by order dated 11th July, 1990 placed on record and marked Annexure P-4 informed the Ist respondent that his appeal would not lie before the said authority and he was advised to prefer it before Deputy Secretary (Co-operation) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh after fulfilling all the codal formalities prescribed under Rule 133 of the H.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1971. It appears that thereafter the Ist respondent has slept over the matter for a period of about six years and finally preferred the appeal against ex parte award of the 4th respondent before the 2nd respondent together with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal and also another application for staying the execution of the impugned award. He has also challenged his removal order dated 13-2-1996 passed by the Managing Director of HIMFED-petitioner in the said appeal. The 2nd respondent, however, concluded that the order of removal passed by the Managing Director of the HIMFED-petitioner could not be challenged
by the 1st respondent before the 2nd respondent as the said authority has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the service matter of the employees of the HIMFED-petitioner and consequently no orders were required to be passed thereon. So far the finding of the 2nd respondent in respect of allowing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act moved by the Ist respondent along with his grounds of appeal is concerned, the 2nd respondent has recorded the following reasoning :
“Insofar the question of condoning the delay in filing appeal is concerned, no doubt the impugned award was passed on 29-12-1989, which was not challenged by the appellant before the competent authority, but the facts cannot be overruled that the criminal proceedings were pending against him on the same charges before the District and Sessions Judge, Hamirpur which was decided against him vide order dated 8-3-1990 and the appellant filed a criminal appeal against the order dated 8-3-1990 in the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 22-10-1992 has set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant and acquitted him of the criminal charges. This order was further challenged by the Government in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India but the SLP was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
Although the contention of the respondent-Federation is admitted that the appeal filed by the appellant is time-barred, but the fact cannot be denied that the criminal proceedings were initiated against him and upto. 1-5-1995 when the Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the SLP filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh, the appellant remained busy in defending himself. Since the charges were of same nature as such the contention of the appellant is also admitted that he could not file an appeal against the award dated 29-12-89. The appellant has been acquitted from the criminal charges by the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh and also won from the Hon’ble Apex Court. Therefore, grave injustice will be done, if opportunity of being heard is not given to the appellant. No doubt it was the duty of the appellant to file an appeal against the award
dated 29-12-1989 before the competent authority, but in view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that with a view to provide justice to the appellant it would be in the interest of natural justice, if the appellant may be given an opportunity of being heard and, therefore, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
Further I have also gone through the contents of the letter dated 24-6-1996, Annexure R-III. The intention of the Law Department is that the Civil liability will remain, unless the same is challenged in accordance with the law before the competent authority and in case the same is quashed/ set aside by the competent Court, the said liability will be no more, as such the Civil liability will remain in force unless the same is quashed/set aside by the competent authority. The Law Department has nowhere mentioned that the award dated 29-12-1989 cannot be challenged before the competent authority. As such, the contention of the respondent-Federation is not admitted that the award dated 29-12-1989 has become final and absolute in view of the opinion of the Law Department and no appeal can be filed against the same.”
10. In the next paragraph of the order it has been observed by the 2nd respondent as under :
“In view of the above submissions, I am of the opinion that prima facie the appellant has good case. The point Involves in this case and requires detailed examination that whether the proceedings initiated on the same charges on which the criminal proceedings are already pending in the Court of Law, award passed by the arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings, can be executed, in such a case when the appellant has been acquitted from the charges levelled against him in the criminal proceedings, by the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh and the SLP of the State Govt. has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
The point also requires clarification whether adequate opportunity has been given to the appellant by the arbitrator, before passing the award.”
11. Against the abovesaid order of the 2nd respondent, the HIMFED-petitioner filed an appeal/review before the Addt. Secretary (Co-operation) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh which was numbered as Case No. 30/96 and decided by the said authority on 30-12-1998 holding that the order passed by the 2nd respondent was detailed one and self-speaking and it dealt with the question of condonation of delay at great length. The Addl. Secretary (Co-operation) has not found sufficient cause to review the order of his predecessor whereunder application of the Ist respondent for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was allowed.
12. In the background of the undisputed facts now we propose to deal with the relevant provisions of the H.P. Co-operative Societies Act. 1968. Section 93 of the Act provides remedy of appeal to the aggrieved party against the orders of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies or any other authority. The Ist respondent was entitled to file appeal before the Competent Authority under Section 93(h) of the Act against any decision or award made by 4th respondent exercising the powers under Section 73 as an Arbitrator. The limitation period for preferring an appeal for all types of orders mentioned in S. 93 is prescribed 60 days from the date of issue. The Ist respondent admittedly filed appeal against the award dated 29-12-89 of the 4th respondent on 20th June, 1990 before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies which was returned to him holding it not maintainable before the said authority and he was advised to prefer an appeal before the Deputy Secretary (Co-operation) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh. The 1st respondent was duly communicated with the order of the Registrar dated 11th July, 1990 marked Annexure P-4. It seems thereafter the Ist respondent did not choose to file the appeal before the competent authority within the prescribed period of limitation or thereafter till 31-10-1996. In criminal proceedings the 1st respondent was convicted and sentenced by the trial Magistrate on March 31, 1986 and his appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur dated March 8, 1990. After the dismissal of the criminal appeal of the Ist respondent against his conviction and sentence by the Sessions Judge,
Hamirpur, the Ist respondent appears to have filed Criminal Revision No. 13/90 in this Court and simultaneously appeal before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies dated 20th June, 1990 against the ex parte award dated 29-12-89 which as stated above was returned to him on 11th July, 1990, From the perusal of the copy of the appeal filed by 1st respondent before the 2nd respondent marked Annexure P-5 on this file it is clear that the appeal against the ex parte award was filed by him on 31-10-1996 along with application under Section 5 of Limitation Act which would mean that the 1st respondent has remained grossly negligent in assailing the ex parte award for a period of about four years after he was acquitted by this Court on 22nd October, 1992 and again he did not choose to file appeal for about 18 months when Special Leave Petition of the State was dismissed by the Apex Court. In his application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act the ground given by the 1st respondent seeking to condone the delay in filing the appeal was mainly that the award passed by the 4th respondent has been reduced to nullity in view of the judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh and the order dated 13-2-96 of the Managing Director of the HIMFED-petitioner had made reference to the award dated 29-12-89. The second ground taken was that the 1st respondent is a resident of village in Chopal, Sub-Division which is situated at a distant place and for want of proper legal advice he could not file the appeal in time. We find that the 2nd respondent has not entertained the joint appeal of the 1st respondent so far as it pertains to his removal from service by the Managing Director of HIMFED-petitioner being without jurisdiction. The delay in filing the appeal qua the challenge made to the ex parte award of the 4th respondent has been condoned. From the bare perusal of the grounds taken by the 1st respondent in his application for condonation of delay we find that the 1st respondent has been grossly negligent in preferring the appeal before the Competent Authority, notwithstanding the communication dated 11th July, 1990 of the Registrar-Co-operative Societies marked Annexure P-4 whereby he was advised to file an appeal before the Competent Authority. The reasoning given by the 2nd respond-
ent in allowing the application of the 1st respondent for condonation of delay is apparently unsound and unsustainable. It was incumbent for the 1st respondent to have explained the delay by giving sufficient reasons for his negligence in not preferring the appeal within period of limitation prescribed by law. If we proceed to accept the submission of the 1st respondent that he was prosecuting his criminal case in a competent Court of law and this was also one of the reason taken into consideration by the 2nd respondent in allowing the application then these submissions stand controverted and falsified from the facts brought on record by the parties. What prevented the 1st respondent from filing the appeal after 11th July, 1990 when he was informed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies is not known nor it has been explained by the 1st respondent in his application seeking to condone the delay in filtng the appeal. Again what prevented the Ist respondent to file an appeal immediately after he was acquitted by this Court on 22nd October, 1992 and further when the Special Leave Petition of the State of Himachal Pradesh was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 1-5-1995 when he was not prosecuting the criminal proceedings. The Ist respondent has not whispered a single word in his application as to how he was prevented and why could he not file the appeal after his acquittal by this Court was passed and, therefore, the reasoning of the 2nd respondent that the 1st respondent was prosecuting criminal proceedings in a competent Court of law which was considered as one of the sufficient cause for condonation of delay in allowing the application and filing the appeal beyond the period of limitation is apparently erroneous and unfounded.
13. As noticed above, the award was passed as far back as on 29-12-1989 and the criminal proceedings ended in favour of the Ist respondent on 22nd October, 1992 when he was acquitted by this Court, the 1st respondent cannot be permitted to say that he was prevented by sufficient cause to file the appeal and application for condonation of delay on 31-10-1996. From the photo copy of the order of the Apex Court marked Annexure R-1 /B we find that the
SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court without sending notice to the 1st respondent. The Ist respondent was under legal obligation to have explained the delay of more than six years to assail the ex parte award before the Competent Authority from July 11, 1990 when he was informed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies that the appeal was not maintainable before the said authority and further after the period of about four years from the date of the order of acquittal passed by this Court in his favour. The sole gound of the 1st respondent mentioned in the application for condonation of delay was that he is a resident of village in Chopal, District Shimla and he could not get the legal advice cannot be sufficient cause to be taken into consideration by the 2nd respondent nor it can be accepted by us as a genuine and sufficient reason to allow the application of the 1st respondent seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal when the appeal was grossly and hopelessly time-barred. The 1st respondent himself was negligent when he refused to appear before the 4th respondent in the arbitration proceedings after he filed the written statement and thereafter also. We are of the considered view that the 1st respondent was negligent in assailing the award of the 4th respondent before the Competent Authority within the prescribed period of limitation or beyond the period of limitation when he has not given sufficient cause to explain the delay in filing the appeal. The 2nd respondent has miserably failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it in its right perspective and legal manner and allowed the application of the Ist respondent for condonation of delay in filing the appeal on irrelevant consideration and not on bona fide or genuine ground. The 1st respondent has not shown any sufficient reason in his application nor he has proved any sufficient cause before the 2nd respondent and it appears to us that the 2nd respondent has not applied his mind in appreciating the essential requirements envisaged for condonation of delay in this case and the impugned order has been recorded mechanically and in slip shod manner. The 2nd respondent has also absolutely stayed the operation and execution of the award made by the 4th
respondent without assigning any reason or subjecting the 1st respondent on some terms and conditions.
14. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel for the 1st respondent contended that the award of the 4th respondent impugned before the Appellate Authority was invalid and illegal as the 1st respondent was simultaneously proceeded under the Penal Code and later on acquitted by this Court and, therefore, finding recorded against the 1st respondent in an ex parte arbitration proceedings could not be sustained. In support of his submission he has placed reliance in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. (1999) 3 SCC 679 : (AIR 1999 SC 1416). We are afraid to accept the submission of the learned counsel in this regard in these proceedings. So far as the proposition of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent is concerned, the same is not attracted in the facts of the case on hand. We have not been called upon by the HIMFED petitioner to decide in these proceedings about the correctness and validity of the award made by the 4th respondent against the 1st respondent nor the 1st respondent is aggrieved before us against the award of the 4th respondent.
15. For the abovesaid reasons, we hold that the impugned order dated 24-12-1996 of 2nd respondent passed in Case No. 30 of 1996 allowing the application of the 1st respondent for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and consequent order dated 31-12-1998 of the Addl. Secretary (Co-operation) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh marked Annexure P-13 whereby the appeal/ review petition of the HIMFED-petitioner was rejected, deserve and are hereby quashed and set aside.
16. No other point has been urged by the learned counsel on either side.
17. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and impugned order dated 24-12-1996 Annexure P-11 of the 2nd respondent and second order dated 30-12-1998 marked Annexure P-13 passed by the Addl. Secretary (Co-operation) to the Govt. of Himchal Pradesh shall stand set aside. The application of the 1st respondent filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the 2nd respondent shall stand rejected. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.