BABOO LALL JAIN, J. ( 1 ) THE Court.-The instant writ petition has been filed by Dilip Kumar Nandy inter alia challenging the Award dated 30. 10. 85 passed by the learned Arbitrator in connexion with the dispute case No. 4/cal/78-79 and also the order dated 5. 11. 86 passed by the learned Member, West Bengal Cooperative Tribunal in connexion with the appeal No. 63 of 1986. The concerned dispute case was filed by the Food Directorate Employees Cooperative Society Limited against one Sri Pradosh Ch. Roychowdhury, Dilip Nandy and Prasad Kr. Chandra in or about July, 1978. The writ petitioner was the secretary of the said Cooperative Society until 6. 12. 77 when the new Managing Committee was formed. The respondent No. 3 in the said dispute case i. e. Prasad Kumar Chandra was the Chairman of the said Cooperative Society and the respondent No. 1 to the said dispute case i. e. Pradosh Ch. Roychowdhury was the treasurer of the said cooperative society until 6. 12. 77. A claim was made against the said three officers of the said cooperative society for a sum of Rs. 35,427. 0213 with interest thereon. It was inter alia pleaded that the cash book was not maintained for quite some time for the period of proceeding 6. 12. 77 and the only sum that was made over to the new Managing Committee was Rs. 1,390. 11p. According to the said Co-operative Society the said respondents did not prepare or caused to be prepared the cash book and the cash book had to be written on the basis of available records and the cash balance as on 6. 12. 77 appeared as Rs. 36,817. 13p as per the cash book prepared. The petitioner, who was the secretary of the said Cooperative Society and the chairman of the same appeared and filed a joint written statement in the said dispute case along with the said Chairman. They raised various defences in the said written statement. The said dispute case leas heard by the learned Arbitrator who made his award on 30. 10. 85. The said learned Arbitrator held that the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable for making good the amount of Rs. 35,427. 02p to the said Employees Cooperative Society. He made an award for the said sum along with interest 10% per annum from 7. 12. 77. 10. 85. The said learned Arbitrator held that the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable for making good the amount of Rs. 35,427. 02p to the said Employees Cooperative Society. He made an award for the said sum along with interest 10% per annum from 7. 12. 77. ( 2 ) THEREAFTER, fire two appeals were preferred from the said award of the Arbitrator. One appeal was preferred by the Treasurer Pradesh Ch. Roychowdhury being appeal No. 55 of 1986 and the other appeal was preferred by Dilip Kumar Nandy the writ petitioner and the defendant No. 3 Prosanta Kr. Chandra which was marked as appeal No. 63 of 1986. The said two appeals came up for hearing before Sri L. N. Ray, Member, West Bengal Cooperative Tribunal and after hearing the two appeals the cooperative Tribunal disposed of the same by one judgment passed in the said Appeals dated 5. 11. 86. By the said judgment of the West Bengal Cooperative Tribunal, the appeal preferred by the Treasurer being the appeal No. 55 of 86 was dismissed on context, without costs and appeal No. 63 of 1986 preferred by the writ petitioner and the Chairman Prosanta Kumar Chandra was partly dismissed and partly allowed on contest without costs. The said Tribunal modified the award and affirmed the award as modified. The award amount was reduced to Its. 32,726. 52p. with interest @ 10% per annum with effect from 7. 12. 77 till date of recovery against the appellant in appeal No. 55 of 1986 and appellant No. 1 i. e. Dilip Kumar Nandy in appeal No. 63 of 86. The said defendant Nos. 1, 2 in the dispute case were jointly and severally held liable for the payment of the said amount. The learned Member allowed installments for payment of the award amount to the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 who were also held liable. ( 3 ) IT is not the case of the writ petitioner nor is the writ petitioner seeking to challenge the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. The writ petitioner contested the case and was heard and the Award was passed by the learned Arbitrator. From that appeals were preferred and the Appellate Tribunal also heard the appeals in full and thereafter passed the judgement dated 5. 11. 86. The writ petitioner contested the case and was heard and the Award was passed by the learned Arbitrator. From that appeals were preferred and the Appellate Tribunal also heard the appeals in full and thereafter passed the judgement dated 5. 11. 86. The learned Advocate for the writ petitioner placed the judgement of the Tribunal before me in and submitted inter alia that the Tribunal has not appreciated the full facts and/or law and/or evidence and that the Tribunal should have decided otherwise and should have held that the writ petitioner was not liable. It is to be noted that the other defendants have not challenged the findings of the Tribunal. Further as the Secretary of the Cooperative Society and as per the by-laws of the said society which has been placed before me, the writ petitioner was to perform duties which included, the duty to receive all monies on behalf of the society and to issue the receipts in of factual discharge of the monies received. He also had the duty to deposit all monies and other properties received on behalf of the society in bank. He also had the duty to maintain proper and accurate record of the work of the society and its accounts. In Rule 2 (1) of the West Bengal Society Rules, 1974 "secretary" has been defined to mean a person who subject to control of the Managing Committee, is entrusted with the management of the affairs of the Co-operative Society. ( 4 ) AS per bye-law 35 of the said Cooperative Society the funds of the society not used in, or is vested outside the business shall be kept in the custody of the treasurer to be appointed by the Managing Committee. In my opinion it could not be said that the Secretary was not obliged to render accounts to the Co-operative Society and/or its Managing Committee. It appears from the judgment of the Arbitrator and the Tribunal that there was evidence that one of the keys of the cash box used to remain with the Secretary and the other key used to remain with the Treasurer. There was also evidence that the cash used to be received also by the Secretary at times. ( 5 ) EXERCISING the constitutional jurisdiction this Court does not sit in appeal from the judgment of Tribunal and/or of the Arbitrator. There was also evidence that the cash used to be received also by the Secretary at times. ( 5 ) EXERCISING the constitutional jurisdiction this Court does not sit in appeal from the judgment of Tribunal and/or of the Arbitrator. The Writ Court is not supposed to interfere with the judgment of the Tribunal even if the Writ Court is of the view that a different view could be possibly taken in the facts and circumstances of the case. The jurisdiction of the Arbitrator to hear the dispute case and to decide the dispute case, is not challenged. It is also not challenged that the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to hear the appeal. In fact, the appeal was preferred by the writ petitioner himself before the said Tribunal. I have been taken through the judgment of the Tribunal and in my opinion the Tribunal has considered all the points which have been raised before the Tribunal and has made a decision which the Tribunal thought fit and proper in the case. It was also sought to be urged that the society should have also proceeded against other members of the Managing Committee in addition to the defendants in the dispute case. This argument also has no substance, because it is entirely for tile plaintiff to decide as to the parties against whom die plaintiff intends to proceed against. I do not find that any grounds have been made out to interfere with the judgment of the Tribunal or of the Arbitrator in the constitutional writ jurisdiction of this Court and as such the writ petition is dismissed, and interim orders if any are vacated. There will be no order as to costs. Petition rejected.