JUDGMENT Mehrotra, J. - This is an application Under Article 226 of the Constitution on behalf of Sri Debi Datt Joshi praying that the order of Sri Shyam Datt Pant, Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, dated 13-8-1955, of Sri Norman Pant, Asstt. Registrar, dated 30-3-1955, and the award of Sri Bhupal Singh Tilara, sole arbitrator, dated 25-12-1951, so far as the applicant is concerned be quashed and in the meantime the execution of the award be stayed. 2. The facts which have given rise to this petition briefly are: that the Barrow Cooperative Development Union, Someshwar, which is opposite party No. 1 to this petition, appointed one Kunwar Singh Rana, who had been impleaded as opposite party No. 5 to this petition, as their salesman by a resolution of the Committee He was a member of the society from May 1946 to 1-6-1947. The audit disclosed that a sum of Rs. 2154/12 was not accounted for by Kunwar Singh Rana out of the sale proceeds received by him during the time he was in service. A demand was then made by the Union from Kunwar Singh Rana with regard to this sum and by two resolutions dated 6-1-1948 and 25-2-1948 the dispute between Kunwar Singh Rana and the Union with regard to this amount was referred to the arbitrator Under Rule 115 made by the State Government in the exercise of its power u/s 43 of the Co-operative Societies Act. There was a resolution of the Committee dated 28-5-1946 by which the salesman was required to give security. The Petitioner was the secretary of the Union from May 1946 to 15-4-1948 on which date he handed over charge and he ceased to hold the office of the secretary of the Union. The dispute between Kunwar Singh kana and the Society with regard to the amount of Rs. 2154-12-0 which was referred to the arbitrator was disposed of by Sri Bhupal Singh Tilara, who was appointed the sole arbitrator, by his award dated 25-12-1951. In the present writ petition Sri Bhupal Singh Tilara is also impleaded as opposite party No. 2. The arbitrator when dealing with the dispute, which has given rise to arbitration, in para 1 of the award has stated that Kunwar Singh Rana as a salesman and as a member of the Union was responsible for Rs. In the present writ petition Sri Bhupal Singh Tilara is also impleaded as opposite party No. 2. The arbitrator when dealing with the dispute, which has given rise to arbitration, in para 1 of the award has stated that Kunwar Singh Rana as a salesman and as a member of the Union was responsible for Rs. 2154/12 and that the present applicant as well as the secretary failed to take security from him. He was thus negligent in his duty and therefore as a surety he is liable to pay the amount in the event of the amount not having been realised from Kunwar Singh Rana. The arbitrator after consideration of the matter gave an award to the extent of Rs. 2154/12 against Kunwar Singh Rana and also directed that in the event the amount not having been realised from him it should be realised from the present applicant. An appeal was filed by Kunwar Singh Rana before the Asstt. Registrar as provided under the rules. The Assst. Registrar called the present applicant as a witness before him and he came to the conclusion that the responsibility of Kunwar Singh Rana was only to the extent of Rs. 1,300 and odd. He therefore allowed the appeal modifying the award to the extent that he reduced the amount as against Kunwar Singh Rana from Rs. 2,100 and odd to Rs. 1,300 and odd. He also came to the conclusion that the present applicant was responsible for Rs. 804/3/- and gave an award as against the present applicant to the extent of Rs. 804/-/3. A revision was filed against this order which was rejected by the Deputy Registrar who exercised the powers of the Registrar under the Rules. 3. The present petition has been filed by the applicant. Notices were issued to the opposite parties and a counter-affidavit has been filed. In the counter affidavit it is stated that by resolution of 14-6-1948 the dispute between the present applicant and the society was also referred to an arbitrator. The stand taken by the opposite parties is therefore that there was a resolution for a reference to the arbitrator the dispute between the society and Kunwar Singh Rana and also between the present Applicant and the society and consequently the award given by the arbitrator and by the Asstt. Registrar is perfectly valid. 4. The stand taken by the opposite parties is therefore that there was a resolution for a reference to the arbitrator the dispute between the society and Kunwar Singh Rana and also between the present Applicant and the society and consequently the award given by the arbitrator and by the Asstt. Registrar is perfectly valid. 4. Two points have been urged before me by the Petitioner. Firstly, it is contended by him that the award of the arbitrator is illegal inasmuch as on the 15th of April 1948 the Petitioner had handed over the charge as a secretary and had ceased to be the officer of the society from that date. The arbitrator gave his award on 25-12-1951 and the matter was referred to an arbitrator long after the Petitioner ceased to be an officer of the society. Therefore there could be no valid reference Under Rule 115 of this question. Rule 115 of the Rules framed u/s 43 of the Co-operative Societies Act provides that: Any dispute touching the business of a registered society (i) between the members or past members of a society or persons claiming through a member or past member, (ii) or between a member or a past member or persons so claiming and the society or its committee or any officer of the society, (iii) between the society or its committee and any officer of the society, and (iv) between two or more registered societies, shall be decided either by the Registrar or by arbitration and shall for that purpose be referred in writing to the Registrar. 5. It is admitted that the Petitioner is neither a member of the society nor a past member of the society and consequently any dispute between him and the society could only be referred under Clause (iii) of Rule 115 to the arbitrator. That however to my mind permits a reference to an arbitrator in respect of any dispute touching the business of a registered society between the society and its officers. It does not contemplate a reference to an arbitrator of any dispute touching the business of the society between the society and a past officer. If the framers of the rule intended that disputes existing between society and past officers be referred to an arbitration they should have used in Clause (iii) similar words as in Clause (i), such as members and past members. If the framers of the rule intended that disputes existing between society and past officers be referred to an arbitration they should have used in Clause (iii) similar words as in Clause (i), such as members and past members. On the date when the reference was made the Petitioner had ceased to be an officer of the society and therefore it was not a dispute touching the business of the society between the society and its officer and therefore it could not be referred to an arbitrator. In that view of the matter the award of the arbitrator is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the matter could not be referred to an arbitrator as required Under Rule 115. The Asstt. Registrar had therefore no power to confirm the award so far as the applicant was concerned. 6. In view of my decision on this point it is not necessary to consider other points raised by the Petitioner; but as it. has been argued I would like to express my opinion on the other contentions of the Petitioner also. 7. The contention of the Petitioner was that even assuming that the Petitioner was rightly made a party to the arbitration proceedings and there could be a valid reference against him the arbitrator only passed an award against the Petitioner that the money was to be realised from him in the event of the society not being able to realise the amount from Kunwar Singh Rana and therefore the Asstt. Registrar in appeal had no power to pass a fresh award to the extent of Rs. 804/-/3 as against the Petitioner. There is substance in this contention also and in my opinion the Asstt. Registrar in appeal had no power to modify the award and to give an award decreeing a sum of Rs. 804/-/3 as against the applicant. 8. It was lastly contended by the Standing Counsel that in any event Under Rule 136 it was open to the Asst. Registrar to review his own order or revise the award of an arbitrator within six months of the giving of such award or order. This power could only be exercised by the Asstt. Registrar within six months of the giving of the award. In this case the award was given on 25-12-1951 and the order of the Asstt. Registrar to review his own order or revise the award of an arbitrator within six months of the giving of such award or order. This power could only be exercised by the Asstt. Registrar within six months of the giving of the award. In this case the award was given on 25-12-1951 and the order of the Asstt. Registrar is dated 30-3-1955 which was much beyond six months and consequently there is no substance in the argument of the opposite parties that the power was exercised by the Asstt. Registrar Under Rule 136 of the Rules. 9. I, therefore, allow this petition, quash the award given by Sri Bhupal Singh Tilara on 25-12-1951 so far as the Petitioner is concerned and also quash the order of the Asstt. Registrar dated 30-3-1955 as against the Petitioner and that of the Deputy Registrar dated 13-8-1955 so far as the Petitioner is concerned with costs.