JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - The petitioner complains that he has been arbitrarily held liable to pay Rs. 44388/- alongwith interest @ 15% per annum w.e.f. January 1, 1993. Is it so ? This is the short question that arises in this case. A few facts may be noticed. 2. The Bhambeva Cooperative Credit and Service Society Ltd., Bhambeva initiated arbitration proceedings against the petitioner and Kali Ram for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 55566/- as principal; Rs. 16500/- on account of interest and Rs. 16500/- by way of costs. The Arbitrator vide his award dated June 22, 1995 held the petitioner liable to pay the amount of Rs. 44388/- alongwith interest. Kali Ram who was one of the parties with the petitioner was held liable to pay Rs. 9650/-. A copy of the award is at Annexure P.1 with the writ petition. Aggrieved by the award, the petitioner filed an appeal. It was dismissed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rohtak vide order dated January 19, 1996. A copy of this order is at Annexure P.3 with the writ petition. Then the petitioner filed a revision petition. It was dismissed by the competent authority vide order dated January 19, 1998. A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure P.5 with the writ petition. The petitioner alleges that the statement of claim was not filed. The original record was not produced or shown to him. The matter had been investigated by the Vigilance Department. Kali Ram had been found to be guilty. A No Dues Certificate dated August 22, 1994 had been issued to him. Despite that, he has been held liable to pay the amount which was actually not due from him. On this basis, the petitioner prays that the impugned orders, copies of which are at Annexures P.1, P.3 and P.5 respectively be quashed. A written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4. It has been inter alia averred that "copy of the claim petition was supplied to the petitioner and the petitioner was given full opportunity to adduce evidence..." It has been further averred that the appeal and revision filed by the petitioner were rightly dismissed. Thus, the respondent prays that the writ petition be dismissed. 3. Counsel for the parties have been heard. 4. Thus, the respondent prays that the writ petition be dismissed. 3. Counsel for the parties have been heard. 4. The primary question that arises for consideration is - Did the petitioner have a reasonable opportunity to meet the claim as made by the respondent-Society ? 5. A perusal of the award given by the Arbitrator shows that "the complete details" regarding the claim were "not enclosed with the case." Still further, it is the admitted position that even the original record was not available as it had been taken by the Vigilance Department for investigation of the matter. Today, at the hearing, counsel for the Respondent-Society has not been able to show as to how a claim for the amount of Rs. 55566/- had been made against the petitioner. Even the details regarding the items which were entrusted to the petitioner or actually sold by him have not been mentioned. In this situation, the plea taken by the Respondent-Society in para no. 6 of the written statement that copy of the claim petition was supplied to the petitioner, cannot be said to be correct. 6. Another fact which deserves mention is that a report had been lodged with the Haryana Vigilance Bureau with regard to the affairs of the Society. A detailed investigation was conducted. Ultimately, a formal FIR was recorded. In this report, it was noticed that the department had requested for the registration of a case against Kali Ram, the Secretary of the Society and Kartar Singh who was working as a Salesman with the Respondent-Society. It is further clear that the allegations were primarily against Kali Ram and not against the petitioner. In any case, a perusal of the report as finally recorded on September 21, 1993 does not show that the petitioner was liable to pay an amount of Rs. 55566/- In fact, the main part had been attributed to Kali Ram. In this situation, it is not understood as to how and on what basis, the petitioner was held liable to pay the amount. 7. Mr. Lohan submits that the petitioner had been afforded a due and reasonable opportunity. However, even he is not able to pin-point and show as to in what way the Respondent-Society had made a claim for an amount of Rs. 55566/- against the petitioner. 7. Mr. Lohan submits that the petitioner had been afforded a due and reasonable opportunity. However, even he is not able to pin-point and show as to in what way the Respondent-Society had made a claim for an amount of Rs. 55566/- against the petitioner. At one stage, the counsel submitted that the petitioner was held liable to pay the price of fertilizer, medicines and seeds as sold by him. However, on a perusal of the award, it is apparent that there is not even a suggestion regarding the sale of seeds. 8. Taking the totality of circumstances into consideration, it does not appear to be possible to uphold the award as made against the petitioner. 9. Counsel for the respondent-Society points out that the award had been affirmed by the appellate as well as the revisional authorities. Thus, this Court should not interfere. 10. It is undoubtedly correct that the High Court does not examine the matter as a Court of appeal. This is all the more so in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, when a citizen like the petitioner is burdened with the liability to pay a substantial amount of money, it has to be ensured that he has a reasonable opportunity to meet the claim as made by the Society. In the present case, it is clear that even a copy of the claim petition was not furnished to him. The original record was not shown to him. The manner in which the amount has been worked out was not made known to him. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the petitioner was granted a reasonable opportunity to meet the claim. Still further the petitioner had raised this issue regarding reasonable opportunity before the appellate and revisional authorities. However, the argument was rejected without disclosing or discussing the factual basis of the case. 11. No other point has been raised. 12. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. This shall, however, not preclude the respondent-Society from proceeding afresh in accordance with law. The parties are left to bear own costs. Petition allowed