Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 312 (UTT)

Nakul Singh v. Collector, Dehradun

2003-12-22

P.C.VERMA, RAJESH TANDON

body2003
Judgment By the present writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 17th October 2003 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as well as the auction proceedings initiated by the Tehsiidar, Dehradun on the basis of the order dated 17th October 2003. 2. Further, the petitioners have prayed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to auction Kanak Cinema. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petitions are that Nakul Singh has claimed himself to be the guarantor of M/s Mayur Chalchitra Audhogic Utpadan Sahkari Samiti, Dehradun in writ petition No. 1124 of 2003 (Nakul Singh Vs. The Collector, Dehradun & Others). In writ petition Lodging No. 432 (M/B) of 2003 (Mayur Chalchitra Utpadan Pradarshan and Vitran Samiti Ltd. Vs. The Collector, Dehradun & another), the petitioner has alleged that a dispute arose between the District Co-operative Society, Dehradun and the petitioner M/s Mayur Chalchitra Audhogic Utpadan Sahkari Samiti, Dehradun. 4. Facts in both the writ petitions being common, as in both, the petitioners have sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for auctioning the property. Therefore, both the writ petitions are disposed of by the common order. 5. On 14th May 1998 a dispute arose between District Co-operative Society, Dehradun and the petitioner M/s Mayur ChaJchitra Audhogic Utpadan Sahkari Samiti, Dehradun, The dispute was referred under Section 70(1) read with Rule 225 of the U.P. Sahkari Samiti Rules, 1968 to the Additional Registrar (Uttaranchal) Sahkari Samiti, U.P., Almora for arbitration. 6. The Arbitrator I Additional Registrar (Uttaranchal) Sahkari Samiti, U,P., Almora while hearing the case, has framed the following four issues: HINDI TYPING 7. While deciding issue NO.2, a finding was recorded that a sum of Rs. 22 lacs was given on loan, the recovery of which has to be made from the defendants NO.2, 3, 4 & 5 namely, M/s Sayog Enterprises (Kanak Cinema); Shri Nakul Singh; Smt. Rajkumari and Smt. Sumitra Sharma in the original arbitration proceedings, 8. The Arbitratorl Assistant Registrar, CO-operative Societies has passed the award, the operative portion of which is quoted below: HIDNI TYPING 9. As a result of the aforesaid order, the petitioners were liable to pay Rs. 19,72,373.90/- along with simple interest of 16%, which comes to Rs. The Arbitratorl Assistant Registrar, CO-operative Societies has passed the award, the operative portion of which is quoted below: HIDNI TYPING 9. As a result of the aforesaid order, the petitioners were liable to pay Rs. 19,72,373.90/- along with simple interest of 16%, which comes to Rs. 40,22,836.52/- and as such the total decretal amount, which was payable by the petitioners was to the extent of Rs. 59,95,210.42/-. 10. As will appear from the aforesaid order, the petitioners were directed to pay the amount in three instalments i.e. : (i) First instalment was to be paid within 2 months (ii) Second instalment was to be paid within 5 months (iii) Third instalment was to be paid within 8 months. 11. Thus, the petitioners were given complete 15 months to pay the decretal amount. Further, the award has already become final so far as the compound interest of 12% as well as 10% towards the recovery charges are concerned. 12. The petitioners have submitted that the Tehsildar has issued an advertisement in the Hindi Newspaper, Amar Ujala dated 13th November 2003 for auction of the property. 13. The petitioners have further submitted that the auction proceedings are against the provisions of Rule 327 of the Co-operative Societies Rules, 1965. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the award dated 3rd June 2000, having attained the finality, it is not open for the petitioners to challenge the recovery proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 14. The Assistant Registrar, under section 70 sub-clause 1 read with rule 225 of the U.P. Sahkari Samiti Rules, was specifically directed for the payment of the amount in three instalments. It was also specifically directed that in the event, the amount is paid within this period, a simple interest of 16% will be charged and in case of failure to pay the amount, the compound interest of 12% along with the recovery charges shall be payable by the petitioners. 15. Once the petitioners have submitted to the award and has not preferred any appeal against the said award, it is not open for the petitioners to challenge, at this stage, the sale of the property after a lapse of two years. 16. Section 102 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 provides the finality of orders and decisions. 15. Once the petitioners have submitted to the award and has not preferred any appeal against the said award, it is not open for the petitioners to challenge, at this stage, the sale of the property after a lapse of two years. 16. Section 102 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 provides the finality of orders and decisions. It reads as under :- "Every award made under Section 71 and every order of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 98 where no appeal has been preferred against such award or order under Section 97 or said sections, shall, subject to Section 98, be final and binding on the parties concerned and shall not be questioned in any court." 17. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, since the award has already become final and the same cannot be questioned by way of the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, therefore, it is not open for the petitioners to challenge the legality of the award with regard to the imposition of compound interest. 18. We, therefore, find no Infirmity in the order dated 17th October 2003 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as well as auction proceedings initiated by the Tehsildar on the basis of the impugned order. 19.1n the end the petitioners have prayed that sometime may be allowed to pay the amount. We, therefore, grant six weeks time to comply the terms of the award, failing which, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed in accordance with the terms contained in the award dated 3rd June 2000. 20. Subject to the aforesaid observations, both the writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.