JUDGMENT
S.N. Srivastava, J.
1. Challenge in the instant petition is focused on awards dated 28th July, 2000, 21.12.1987 and 21.12.1983 rendered by Additional District Cooperative Officer, Chunar, Mirzapur and consequent recovery citations dated 6.3.2002. The petition was heard on various dates and last hearing in the case was made on 10.5.2004 on which date the petition was allowed stipulating that reasons would follow.
2. Brief facts as may bear upon the controversy involved in this petition may be recapitulated hereinafter. As the materials on record indicate, the petitioner who claims himself to be a marginal farmer, had obtained seeds of the value of Rs. 6.756.89 and Rs. 4,970.15 respectively from Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Bat Bantara Madhupur Sonebhadra, as far back as in the year 1982 for his crops. Concededly, the petitioner could not repay the amount to the aforestated Samiti due to successive failure of crops thereafter. It is canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that subsequently, Government order dated 13.5.1990 came to be issued by which agriculturalists were given relief of exemption in the matter of recovery of loan to the extent of Rs. 10,000 granted prior to 2.10.1989 and consequently, he laboured under sense of complacence during all this period that he was relieved of repaying the loan. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner was stunned to receive citation dated 6.3.2002 and it was upon receipt of citation that he became aware that the respondent Sadhan Sahkari Co-operative Society took recourse to arbitration which were continued slyly and ultimately culminated in awards and citation impugned therein. It was further canvassed that the petitioner never knew of the proceeding nor was he served with any summon or notice as mandated under the U. P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1968, nor was he given any opportunity of hearing and the entire proceeding being in antagonism of mandatory provisions of the Act and Rules is impaired. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Sadhan Society contended that citation was issued pursuant to the awards impugned herein and it was rightly passed and citation was rightly issued. However, when confronted with the averments made in para 8 of the writ petition, the learned counsel did not controvert the facts that the notice/summons were not served to the petitioner during the entire arbitration proceeding.
3. In connection with the above contentions, I feel called to refer to the relevant provisions contained in Section 71 of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. Clause (5) of Section 71 envisages that the procedure to be followed by the Registrar, the arbitrator or the board of arbitrators in deciding a dispute and making an award under this section shall be as may be prescribed. Rules framed under the Act prescribe procedure to be followed. Rule 237 (c) envisages that the summons may be served (i) by registered (acknowledgment due) post, or (ii) by personal service through the secretary of the society or a member of the staff of the financing or supervising society and (d) if the service of summons could not be effected by any of the modes specified under Sub-rule (c) it may be effected by any other mode provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. 5 of 1908). Reverting to the facts of the present case, it has not been repudiated by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner was not served with summon or notice in the course of arbitration proceeding. In response to specific averments made in para 8 of the writ petition to the effect that no opportunity was given before passing of the said award and no notice/summon fixing 29.12.1983, was received by the petitioner No. 1 and that the petitioner had no knowledge of this award until the year 2004, the learned counsel did not repudiate the averments save saying that the awards were rightly made and citation was rightly issued. As stated supra, Section 71 (5) prescribes that the Arbitrator shall follow procedure as may be prescribed. The procedure in connection with it are prescribed in Rule 237 (c) of the Rules framed under the Act.
4. The question now is whether arbitration proceedings are proceeding to be conducted in judicial manner. Arbitration is determination of a matter in dispute by the judgment of one, two or more persons, called arbitrators, who in case of difference usually call in an umpire to decide between them. (See Whartons Law Lexicon). In Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, the arbitration means the act of arbitrating, specially the hearing and determination of a case in controversy by a person chosen by the parties or appointed under statutory authority. In para 501 of Halsbury’s Laws of England, arbitration is the reference of a dispute or difference between not less than two parties for determination, after hearing both sides in a judicial manner, by a person or persons other than a court of competent jurisdiction. It would thus crystallise that arbitration in the instant case was the kind of arbitration without the intervention of Court and the authority concerned is enjoined in the Act and Rules framed thereunder to follow the procedure prescribed thereunder.
5. It has been enunciated by a string of decisions that essentials of due process consists of (1) notice, (2) opportunity to be heard, (3) an impartial Tribunal and (4) orderly course of procedure. Due process or procedure having been prescribed in the rules framed under the Act, any action departing from the procedure prescribed under the Rules would render the proceeding vitiated. In the instant case, it is borne out from the oral submissions as well as from the materials on record that the recourse to arbitration proceeding commenced and continued without any intimation to the petitioner till it culminated in issuance of citation and it was upon receipt of citation that the petitioner came to know of the proceeding. In the circumstances, the authority, i.e., the Arbitrator proceeded in the matter, which culminated in the awards and issuance of citation without observing in compliance with the procedure prescribed under the Rules which entailed issuance of summons and notices to the petitioner. The entire proceeding culminating in award having been conceived and carried out in covert manner, lacks validity of a judicial decision. When an authority is required to act judicially, the decision of such an authority amounts to quasi-judicial decisions. The proceeding before the Arbitrator has an element of quasi-judicial proceeding and it has to act judicially observing essentials of issuing notice and affording opportunity of hearing to the party concerned. It is clearly eloquent from the materials on record that the petitioner was unaware of entire proceeding which was taken without any intimation at any stage to the petitioner and, therefore, the awards are nothing but a nullity in law and cannot be sustained in law.
6. Yet another aspect to be noticed is that the awards are contained in printed form, which goes to signify that the awards have been rendered in a mechanical manner without application of mind and without observing the principles of natural justice. What is further indicative of non-application of mind is the factum that the award does not involve presentation of the case by the parties to the dispute, the ascertainment of the fact by means of evidence adduced by the parties to the dispute and the submission of legal argent by the parties which are necessary/essentials for arbitration proceeding to be conducted in judicial manner. Besides, it is crystal clear that the authority concerned has merely filled in the blanks in the printed form which have been given the complexion of an award in arbitration by the authority. A quasi-judicial authority enjoined to act according to the prescribed procedure ought to act judicially and the manner in which the matter has culminated in the award does not suggest that the authority concerned has followed the prescribed procedure or has applied its mind and, therefore, the conclusion is irresistible and the authority has proceeded mechanically without following the prescribed procedure and without observing in compliance of the principles of natural justice. Besides awards impugned herein having been rendered on printed forms, do not have any indicia of an award rendered in a judicial manner and, therefore, the awards impugned herein and citation issued pursuant thereto cannot be sustained and are liable to be dismissed. Before parting with the case, I feel called to express that the Court has not traversed upon the merit of other contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner such as reliance on Government orders granting exemption etc. and is inclined to quash the impugned awards on the solitary ground of the awards having been rendered otherwise than in accordance with the prescribed procedure and without application of mind, any observation herein shall not be treated to be an observation on merit of the case and it would be open to the opposite parties to initiate appropriate steps in the controversy involved in the writ petition in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules framed thereunder, of course, taking into reckoning the propriety of the Government order granting relief of exemption in the matter of recovery of loan to the extent of Rs. 10,000 as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner to prop up his case.
7. As a result of foregoing discussions, the petition is allowed and in consequence, the impugned awards 28.7.2000, 21.12.1983 and 21.12.1987 and also the citation dated 6.3.2002, impugned herein are quashed attended with the direction to the respondents to act according to the directions embodied in the body of this judgment.