Judgment :- 1. The 2nd respondent Bank filed four "arbitration cases" against the petitioner, under S.69 and 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The petitioner appeared before the Arbitrator at the first sitting, and was told that intimation about the next sitting would be duly given. But without giving any such intimation, the four cases were taken up for hearing on 12-6-79 and ex parte awards passed in favour of the Bank, in the petitioner's absence. Exts.P1 to P4 are the awards. The gist of the awards was also not communicated to the petitioner, as required by R.68. The petitioner came to know about the passing of the awards only when the 1st respondent issued "sale notices", in execution of the awards. The petitioner thereupon challenged the four awards in four different Revision Petitions filed before the 4th respondent-Tribunal; but these were also dismissed on 18-12-80, for the reason that the petitioner and his counsel were absent when the cases were taken up. Exts.P5 to P8 are the orders of the Tribunal. Thereafter Exts.P9 and P10 auction notices were served on the petitioner. The Arbitrator had acted arbitrarily and in violation of S.104 in making the ex parte awards. He also failed to comply with R.68. The 4th respondent-Tribunal did not apply its mind to the contentions the petitioner had raised in the revisions. Exts.P9 and P10 notices include claims for exorbitant amounts of interest, contrary to Ext.P11 Government order issued on 4-7-80. Exts.P1 to P10 are therefore liable to be quashed. 2. The above is the case of the petitioner. But the respondents have a different story to tell. Ex parte awards came to be passed on 12-6-1979 because the petitioner and his counsel did not appear despite service of summons on 14-5-1979. In response to summons issued for the sitting of the Arbitrator, the petitioner had appeared through counsel on 16-6-1977 and requested for time to file objections. Time was granted and the matter was posted to 16-9-1977. On that date, neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared. Still the matter was adjourned. As in the meanwhile some other person was appointed to the office of the 3rd respondent, the next sitting was arranged only for 12-6-1979. Summons was again served on the petitioner, for this sitting, on 14-5-1979. Exparte awards were therefore passed on 12-6-1979. On that date, neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared. Still the matter was adjourned. As in the meanwhile some other person was appointed to the office of the 3rd respondent, the next sitting was arranged only for 12-6-1979. Summons was again served on the petitioner, for this sitting, on 14-5-1979. Exparte awards were therefore passed on 12-6-1979. The gist of the awards were sent to the petitioner under certificate of posting. AH these can be seen from the files, as also from Exts. RI to R5. As for the proceedings before the Tribunal, the failure of the petitioner to appear before it left it with no alternative except to go through the files and find out whether notice had been served on the petitioner by the Arbitrator before the ex parte awards were passed. The Tribunal did examine this question and recorded a finding that such notices had been duly served. Regarding interest claimed, Ext. P11 was issued only on 4-7-80, and this was taken into account when execution was taken out: the liability under the awards amounted to more than Rs .10,000/-, but the total amount claimed was only Rs. 6339/-after giving appropriate deductions on the basis of Ext. P11. 3. On an examination of the facts with reference to the relevant files, I am satisfied, if such satisfaction is required in proceedings under Art.226, that the case put forward by the respondent is correct, and that the petitioner's case is not so accurate. The awards were made ex parte only after service of "summons" sufficiently early. The Tribunal reached the correct conclusion, on the facts disclosed by the files. There is also nothing to suggest that the benefit of Ext. P11 has not been given to the petitioner. 4. The only question of law raised in the present proceedings is that the "summons" issued by the Arbitrator was insufficient: he should have issued notices by registered post, as required by S.104 of the Act, before proceeding exparte. 5. There is also nothing to suggest that the benefit of Ext. P11 has not been given to the petitioner. 4. The only question of law raised in the present proceedings is that the "summons" issued by the Arbitrator was insufficient: he should have issued notices by registered post, as required by S.104 of the Act, before proceeding exparte. 5. S.104 reads: "Service of notice Every notice or order issued or made under this Act may be served on any person, by properly addressing it to the last known place of residence or business of such person preparing and posting by registered post a letter containing the notice or order and, unless the contrary is proved, such service shall be deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course." All that the Section says is that: (i) notices may be served by registered post; (ii) when it is shown that such notice is posted in a properly addressed cover, there will be a presumption that it is duly served; (iii) the time of effecting service can be taken as the time at which such a registered cover would have been delivered to the addressee in the ordinary course; and (iv) the above presumption can be rebutted by adequate evidence. In other words, the Section permits service of notice by registered post and prescribes that in such a case, actual service or delivery need not be separately proved. This is different from saying that service by registered post is the only permissible statutory method. The Section does not exclude other well-known methods of effecting service such as service through a bearer or process-server. Even in Ravindranatha Pillai v. Co-op. Tribunal (1979 KLT 486), relied on by counsel, this Court did not go to the extent of holding that service of summons under O. V of the Code of Civil Procedure would not be sufficient. 6. Again, there is no dispute and it is also indisputable that a letter, notice, summons or intimation was given to the petitioner on 14-5-1979 that the four arbitration cases were to be taken up by the Arbitrator on 12-6-1979. It is clear that the petitioner had received it and had still failed to appear. 6. Again, there is no dispute and it is also indisputable that a letter, notice, summons or intimation was given to the petitioner on 14-5-1979 that the four arbitration cases were to be taken up by the Arbitrator on 12-6-1979. It is clear that the petitioner had received it and had still failed to appear. The question whether the petitioner should have been informed about the posting in some other manner or not is a mere technicality which this Court need not necessarily go into, while exercising its discretionary power under Art.226. 7. As for application of its mind by the Tribunal, the only question in revision was whether the Arbitrator had notified the parties before proceeding exparte. The Tribunal had examined the records, applied its mind to the question and come to a conclusion which, on the materials before it, was clearly possible. There are therefore no grounds to interfere. O.P. dismissed. No costs.