Judgment :- Considering the limited issue raised, writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. R.S.R. Chit Funds Private Limited has filed the above Writ Petition questioning Government Order (D) No. 177 dated 04-07-2002 of the first respondent-Government of Tamil Nadu, confirming the order of the Arbitrator, Chennai Central Chit Fund Cases, Chennai-1, made in A.R.C.No. 588 of 2000. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate for 1st respondent and Mr. K. Gajendran, learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4. Respondents 5 and 6 have not chosen to contest the above writ petition by engaging a counsel. 3. In the light of the order to be passed hereunder, it is unnecessary to refer all the factual details as arrayed in the affidavit. However, it is to be noted that the petitioner being the Chit Fund company under the provisions of the Chit Funds Act, 1982, any dispute relating to the chit business and arising between the foreman and a prized subscriber can be referred to the Registrar for Arbitration. The petitioner had referred one such dispute before the 2nd respondent in A.R.C.No. 588/2000 for recovery of a sum of Rs.46,500/-. It is further seen that the said reference was taken on file and numbered as A.R.C.No. 588/2000 and the hearing was fixed on 12-9-2000, for which summons was sent to the respondents 3 to 6. However, they did not appear. Therefore, fresh summons was sent for the next hearing date which was scheduled for 16-10-2000 and for the hearing dated 10-11-2000. The respondents 3 to 6 did not appear before the 2nd respondent even for these two hearings. Thereafter, since there was no sitting conducted by the 2nd respondent, the matter was posted for hearing on 10-11-2000, 13-12-2000 and 01-02-2001. It is stated that the post of 2nd respondent fell vacant and there was no officer appointed for the purpose of conducting the arbitration cases. The petitioner came to know that the 2nd respondent post was filled in on 1-2-2001 and their matter was posted for hearing on 20-3-2001, in which date their counsel could not reach the Court on time due to traffic problem. It is further seen that because of the absence of the petitioner and their counsel, the 2nd respondent dismissed the arbitration case due to default. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application seeking to restore the proceedings back to file. It is further seen that because of the absence of the petitioner and their counsel, the 2nd respondent dismissed the arbitration case due to default. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application seeking to restore the proceedings back to file. However, the said application was returned stating that the order passed earlier is final and only appeal will lie to the Government. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 70 of the Chit Funds Act. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though the petitioner was anxious to put-forth their claim before the first respondent Government, without proper and sufficient opportunity, the first respondent by order dated 4-7-2002, dismissed their appeal and confirmed the order or the arbitrator. 4. In the light of the factual details, I have verified the order of the 2nd respondent dismissing their A.R.C. due to non-appearance as well as the order of the first respondent, dismissing their appeal again on the ground of non-appearance. After going through those orders and the explanation offered by the petitioners for their action before the Arbitrator as well as the claim of the petitioner that they did not receive any intimation of hearing from the first respondent-Government and also taking note of the fact that respondents 3 and 4 have no serious objection in deciding the matter on merits, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met by directing the 2nd respondent Arbitrator to decide A.R.C.No.588 of 2000 one way or other on merits. Accordingly, the impugned orders of the first and second respondents dated 4-7-2002 and 20-3-2002 respectively are set aside and the Arbitrator, 2nd respondent herein, is directed to restore the said A.R.C (A.R.C.No.588/2000) on its file and dispose of the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording sufficient opportunity to all the parties concerned. Writ Petition is allowed to this extent. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No. 30943/2003 is closed.