Judgment :- P. SATHASIVAM J. The then Special Officer, Pallipattu Co-operative Land Development Bank, against whom an award for Rs. 16, 197.40 passed by the arbitrator, confirmed by the Co-operative Tribunal in S. T. C. A. No. 248 of 1986 is the petitioner in the above civil revision petition filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India. The facts leading to the filing of the present revision are narrated hereunder : In order to provide relief to indebted agriculturists, the Government of Tamil Nadu by G. O. Ms. No. 389, Co-operative, dated September 6, 1984, brought forward a scheme in which certain reliefs were granted to indebted agriculturists. As per the said Government order, the interest on the principal overdues and the penal interest as on June 30, 1984, shall be waived provided the entire outstanding dues as on June 30, 1984, are fully paid before December 31, 1984. It is further seen in the later Government order, namely, G. O. Ms. No. 43, Co-operation Department, dated January 28, 1985, the concession mentioned in the earlier Government order has been extended for payment of the principal amount by March 31, 1985. In other words, if any debtor of co-operative loans pays the entire principal amount before March 31, 1985, the interest on the principal overdues and penal interest have to be waived. Taking advantage of the Government orders referred to above, one P. Rajagopal Naidu who had borrowed loan from the first respondent, namely, Pallipattu Co-operative Development Bank has fully discharged his loan on March 30, 1985, i.e., one day prior to the cut-off date. In view of the payment made by the borrower, the petitioner who was a Special Officer of the said bank issued a certificate. The said certificate is extracted hereunder : "CERTIFICATE This is to certify that Thiru P. Rajagopal Naidu, S/o. Munusamy Naidu of Neidgallu village, has fully discharged his loan (Loan No. 338/ Normal) to our bank on March 30, 1985. But his loan account is subject to the penal interest waiver concession debited to suspense recoverable account and clear loan certification by the Land Valuation Officer, Tiruttani.(Sd.) .................. 8-4-1985. Special Officer." * Before proceeding further, it is also useful to refer that before sanctioning any loan a duty is cast on the Land Valuation Officer attached to the bank to certify and assess the value of hypothecation of the borrower. 8-4-1985. Special Officer." * Before proceeding further, it is also useful to refer that before sanctioning any loan a duty is cast on the Land Valuation Officer attached to the bank to certify and assess the value of hypothecation of the borrower. Only on the basis of the certificate the bank advances loan. According to the petitioner, the same was followed in this case also and inasmuch as the borrower has complied with the concession as announced by the Government in the above mentioned Government orders, he has issued a certificate stating that his loan (Loan No. 338) has been fully discharged. He has also incorporated a condition that the said loan amount is subject to the penal interest waiver concession debited to suspense recoverable account and clear loan certification by the Land Valuation Officer, Tiruttani. It is also further seen that the Land Valuation Officer, Tiruttani, on October 4, 1985, has certified with regard to the loan borrowed by P. Rajagopal Naidu, which is as follows "Cleared loan certified." (Sd.) Balaraman Land Valuation Officer, Tiruttani. 4-10-1985. In spite of the above fact, at the instance of the first respondent bank, an arbitration proceeding was initiated and by award dated April 20, 1988, the arbitrator has passed the following award : "That the defendant, Thiru M. Sathyanarayana, the then Special Officer of the Pallipattu Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd., Pallipattu, to pay the plaintiff Rs. 16, 197.40 (rupees sixteen thousand and one hundred and ninety-seven and paise forty only) with interest thereon at 12.5 per cent. per annum from April 20, 1988, until realisation." * Aggrieved by the award of the arbitrator, the petitioner herein filed an appeal S.T.C.A. No. 248 of 1988 before the Special Tribunal for Co-operative Cases, Madras. The Tribunal by order dated October 14, 1991, confirmed the award of the arbitrator and dismissed the appeal.Against the dismissal of the appeal by the Tribunal, the petitioner has filed the present revision before this court. Mr. T. V. Ramanujam, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, after pointing out the two Government orders, viz., G. O. Ms. No. 389, Co-operation, dated September 6, 1984 and G. O. Ms. Mr. T. V. Ramanujam, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, after pointing out the two Government orders, viz., G. O. Ms. No. 389, Co-operation, dated September 6, 1984 and G. O. Ms. No. 43, Co-operation Department, dated January 28, 1985, submits that since the borrower, namely, Rajagopal Naidu, has fully discharged his loan on March 30, 1985, that is, prior to the cut-off date, that is December 31, 1984, the certificate issued by the petitioner on April 8, 1985, when he was working as Special Officer is in accordance with law and there is no warrant to initiate any proceedings against him. He also submits that since the certificate issued by the petitioner was in accordance with the Government orders as well as subject to the clearance by certificate to be issued by the Land Valuation Officer, Tiruttani, there is no need to take any action against the petitioner herein. He further submits that the arbitrator has not adduced any reason for passing the award and the Appellate Co-operative Tribunal without looking into the subsequent Government order, namely, G. O. Ms. No. 43, Co-operation Department, dated January 28, 1985, extending the time limit up to March 31, 1985, for payment of the principal amount, erroneously dismissed the appeal. Hence, he prays for interference in this revision. On the other hand, Mr. G. Rajagopal, learned counsel for the first respondent, after taking me through the order of the Tribunal, submits that in view of the factual conclusion reached by the arbitrator as well as by the appellate authority, it is not for this court to interfere under article 227 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that even though the relevant records were not placed before the Tribunal by placing xerox copies of such records, there is no warrant to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the authorities. I have carefully considered the rival submissions.Since there is no dispute with regard to the scheme formulated by the Government in order to ameliorate indebted agriculturists, I am not once again reproducing the two Government orders, namely, G. O. Ms. No. 389, Co-operation, dated September 6, 1984, and G.O. Ms. No. 43, Co-operation Department, dated January 28, 1985. On the basis of the said Government orders, the borrower has rightly discharged his entire loan (Loan No. 338) on March 30, 1985. No. 389, Co-operation, dated September 6, 1984, and G.O. Ms. No. 43, Co-operation Department, dated January 28, 1985. On the basis of the said Government orders, the borrower has rightly discharged his entire loan (Loan No. 338) on March 30, 1985. The petitioner, who was the Special Officer, in view of the fact that the Land Valuation Officer has to further certify, has rightly added one more clause that the said loan account is subject to the penal interest waiver concession debited to suspense recoverable account and clear loan certification by the Land Valuation Officer, Tiruttani. Further, it is also seen that on October 4, 1985, the Land Valuation Officer, Tiruttani, has also issued a certificate stating that the loan of P. Rajagopal, has been cleared. In view of the above mentioned factual position, the conclusion of the Tribunal, namely :-- The Tamil version is factually incorrect. Moreover, the Appellate Tribunal has proceeded on the basis of the earlier Government order, namely, G. O. Ms. No. 389, Co-operation, dated September 6, 1984. A reading of the Tribunal's order further shows that it was not at all aware of the subsequent Government order, namely, G. O. Ms. No. 43, Co-operation Department, dated January 18, 1985, extending the time up to March 31, 1985, for compliance. In view of the later Government order, the payment of entire loan by the borrower, P. Rajagopal Naidu, on March 30, 1985, is in order and he is entitled to get all the benefits as per the earlier Government order. Unfortunately, this was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal. It is very sad to note that before the Tribunal the records relating to the first authority, namely, arbitrator has not been placed. Even though the first authority has not sent the necessary records to the appellate authority at the time of hearing at least the Government Pleader who appeared for the Deputy Registrar (second respondent) before the Tribunal could have taken some steps to secure the records from the first authority. As rightly pointed out by Mr. T. V. Ramanujam, learned senior counsel, the order of the arbitrator does not contain any reason for his conclusion. Likewise, the Tribunal has also disposed of the appeal without any records as well as without reference to the later Government order referred to above. In those circumstances, Mr. As rightly pointed out by Mr. T. V. Ramanujam, learned senior counsel, the order of the arbitrator does not contain any reason for his conclusion. Likewise, the Tribunal has also disposed of the appeal without any records as well as without reference to the later Government order referred to above. In those circumstances, Mr. G. Rajagopalan requested that in the interest of safeguarding revenue, the matters may be remitted either to the arbitrator or at least to the Tribunal for fresh disposal. I am unable to accept his request for the simple reason that in the light of the two Government orders referred to above, the payment of the entire loan amount on March 30, 1985, by the borrower is fully in accordance with the directions issued by the Government. Apart from that, the petitioner herein, who was a special officer, has taken care to incorporate a condition that the said loan account is subject to the penal interest waiver concession debited to suspense recoverable account and clear loan certification by the Land Valuation Officer, Tiruttani. As stated earlier, the Land Valuation Officer has also certified that it is a cleared loan. In such circumstances, inasmuch as the debtor has complied with the conditions prescribed by the Government in the above referred two Government orders and obtained concession and the same has been properly recorded and certificate to that effect has been issued by the petitioner herein, there is no need to remit the matter once again for fresh disposal as requested by learned counsel for the first respondent. The petitioner has already suffered much agony for more than ten years. In those circumstances, the civil revision petition is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs. C. M. P. No. 17244 of 1991 is dismissed.