JUDGMENT Mehtab Singh Gill, J. - The petitioner has prayed for issuing of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dated 17.7.1998 (Annexure P.16). 2. The petitioner has averred that he joined as a salesman in Rajpur Sallapur Co-operative Agricultural Service Society (hereinafter called the "Society") on 1.12.1978. He resigned from the service on 15.6.1988. At the time of leaving the service of the society, as per records, stock of fertilizers of Rs. 10,125.17 and stock of essential commodities of Rs. 4,385.98 were with the petitioner. The petitioner deposited the price of the stock with Shri Parkash Singh, the then Secretary of the Society and obtained receipt from him. Copy of the receipt is Annexure P-1. The petitioner also obtained No Dues Certificate from the secretary of the Society copy of which is Annexure P-2. After about seven years of leaving the services of the society, the petitioner received a notice dated 13.2.1987 from Shri Dharam Singh, Inspector of the Society that the Society has instituted an arbitration case against the petitioner. The petitioner was asked to appear before the Inspector who was acting as an Arbitrator. Copy of the notice dated 13.2.1987 is attached here as Annexure P-3. The petitioner appeared before the Arbitrator on 5.3.987 and produced the original receipt regarding the deposit of the amount mentioned in the notice. After seeing the receipt, the arbitrator closed the proceedings on 5.3.1987. On 17.3.1987, the petitioner received another notice from the Arbitrator stating that an application has been received from Shri Parkash Singh dated 6.3.1987 raising objection that the receipt produced by the petitioner was bogus. The copy of second notice dated 7.3.1987 is attached here as Annexure P-4. The petitioner again appeared before the Arbitrator on 30.3.1987. The petitioner produced the receipt again and some other receipts issued by Shri Parkash Singh, Secretary, regarding the deposit of the sale proceeds. The Arbitrator absolved the petitioner of the liability and observed that the Society may recover the amount from the person responsible for making the payment. Copies of two awards dated 30.3.1987 are enclosed as Annexures P-5 and P-6. The Arbitrator absolved the petitioner of the liability and observed that the Society may recover the amount from the person responsible for making the payment. Copies of two awards dated 30.3.1987 are enclosed as Annexures P-5 and P-6. After about two years, fresh references were made to the Arbitrator for the recovery of the same amount and the petitioner was again impleaded as a respondent in those references, though he had been absolved of the liability by the earlier awards dated 30.3.1987 (Annexures P-5 and P-6). The petitioner appeared and again produced the receipt and No Dues Certificate and copies of the earlier awards. The Society did not produce any record relating to the amount claimed before the Arbitrator despite repeated adjournments and finally the Arbitrator rejected the application of the Society. Copies of awards dated 11.12.1989 given by Shri Sham Singh Arbitrator are enclosed here as Annexures (P.7 and P-8). It has further been averred that the Society remained silent for about 6-7 years and in February, 1996, the Society again made a claim for the recovery of the amount in dispute before Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society, Dasuya. On receiving the notice, the petitioner appeared before the Arbitrator and produced the receipt about the payment made and No Dues Certificate issued by the Secretary of the society and also produced the copies of the awards dated 30.3.1987 (Annexures P-5 and P-6) and awards dated 11.12.1989 (Annexures P-7 and P-8). The Arbitrator after recording the evidence, absolved the petitioner of the liability for payment of this amount and held that Parkash Singh, the then Secretary of the Society with whom the amount was deposited, was liable for payment of this amount. Since Shri Parkash Singh had died, therefore his father Shri Hardev Singh, being the legal heir, was made liable. Shri Hardev Singh has been arrayed as respondent No. 2 in this petition. Copy of award dated 24.7.1996 given by Shri Ramji Arbitrator is enclosed as Annexure P-9. Respondent No. 2 filed an appeal against the award dated 24.7.1996 (Annexure P-9) before the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Dasuya. The Assistant Registrar without granting any opportunity of hearing or notice to the petitioner, remanded the case to the Arbitrator for fresh decision. On remand the case was heard by Shri Swaran Singh, Inspector Co-operative Societies, Focal Point, Manhotta. Shri Swaran Singh Inspector acting as an Arbitrator issued a notice. The Assistant Registrar without granting any opportunity of hearing or notice to the petitioner, remanded the case to the Arbitrator for fresh decision. On remand the case was heard by Shri Swaran Singh, Inspector Co-operative Societies, Focal Point, Manhotta. Shri Swaran Singh Inspector acting as an Arbitrator issued a notice. The petitioner did not receive any notice about the hearing but still appeared on the date fixed and requested for time to submit his defence. The Arbitrator refused to grant any time. The petitioner produced copies of awards dated 30.3.1987 (Annexures P-5 and P-6) absolving the petitioner of the liability of the payment of disputed amount and the subsequent awards dated 11.12.1989 given by Shri Sham Singh (Annexures P-7 and P-8) and also award dated 24.7.1996 (Annexure P-9). The Arbitrator passed an order against the petitioner stating that as per the record the amount was due from the petitioner, as he was working as a salesman and was responsible to deposit the sale proceeds and directed that the amount be recovered from the petitioner. The copies of awards dated 18.10.1996 given by Shri Swaran Singh are enclosed as Annexures P-10 and P-11. The petitioner filed statutory appeal against the awards dated 18.10.1996 (Annexures P-10 and P-11) before the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Dasuya. Alongwith the appeal, the petitioner again attached photo copies of the receipts, no dues certificates and awards. After going through the documents, the Assistant Registrar absolved the petitioner of the liability and held that Shri Parkash Singh was liable for payment of the amount and the same be recovered from his legal heir Shri Hardev Singh, i.e. respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 Shri Hardev Singh filed revision petition under Section 69 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 against the order of the Assistant Registrar dated 4.6.1997 (Annexure P-13). The Additional Secretary, Cooperation, Punjab, Chandigarh (respondent No. 4) exercising the powers of the State Government vide his order dated 17.7.1993 (Annexure P-16) set aside the order of the Assistant Registrar and held the petitioner liable to pay the amount. 3. Notice of motion was issued to respondent Nos. 2 to 4, who have filed their written statements. 4. I have heard the argument on behalf of the petitioner and the respondents. Perused the petition and the written statements and the annexures attached thereto. 5. 3. Notice of motion was issued to respondent Nos. 2 to 4, who have filed their written statements. 4. I have heard the argument on behalf of the petitioner and the respondents. Perused the petition and the written statements and the annexures attached thereto. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset has argued that the two awards dated 30.3.1987 (Annexures P-5 and P-6) were not challenged and thus have attained finality. These two awards have exonerated the petitioner. The awards dated 11.12.1989 (Annexures P-7 and P-8) were again given in favour of the petitioner. The award dated 18.10.1996 (Annexure P-10) has been given after a dispute was raised once again after six years. This award cannot now be taken against the petitioner, as it has an infirmity of delay and latches. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has also forcibly (forcefully ?) argued that after a lapse of more than six years, respondent No. 2 also cannot be held liable to pay the amount. He has placed reliance on The Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum v. T.P. Kunhaliumma, AIR 1977 SC page 282, in which it has been held that Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to any petition or application filed under any Act. The limitation given as per Articles 137 is three years. 7. There is force in the argument put forward by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondent No. 2 that as the awards dated 30.3.1987 (Annexures P-5 and P-6) have attained finality, they cannot be challenged at such a belated stage. Further the awards (Annexures P-7 and P-8) dated 11.12.1989, though challenged, but were given in favour of the petitioner. The appointing of an Arbitrator and he issuing a notice dated 18.10.1996 i.e. after a lapse of more than six years of passing of the second award in favour of the petitioner, could not have been allowed at such a belated stage. The authority relied upon by respondent No. 2 (supra) squarely covers this case as the limitation period to go into this matter any more had elapsed and Shri Swaran Singh Inspector, who was appointed as an Arbitrator could not have issued a notice to the petitioner and further also could not have given an award against the petitioner or respondent No. 2. The receipts given by Shri Parkash Singh, the Secretary at that time amount to Rs. 10,125.17 and further for the amount of Rs. 4,385.98 have been shown to me. Learned counsel for the respondent concedes that these are the signatures of the Secretary i.e. the son of respondent No. 2. He further concedes that the no dues certificates also bears the signatures of Shri Parkash Singh. If there was any dispute as to these receipts, the lower authorities could have had these receipts examined from an expert and got his opinion. With these observations, order dated 17.7.1998 (Annexure P-16) is quashed. The disputed amount cannot also be recovered from respondent No. 2 at this belated stage. Parties to bear their own costs. Order accordingly.