JUDGMENT : Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:- “(i) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the illegal proceedings initiated after conclusion of proceedings by passing the final order/judgment and direct the respondents to restraint from proceeding further in Case Nos. 74/2014-15, 76/2014-15 and 77/2014-15, vide order dated 2.4.2016.” 2. Petitioner Yogesh Kumar has approached this Court with the assertion that proceedings of arbitration got initiated in respect of a dispute between the members and 509 Army Base Workshop Workers Cooperative Society, in which Sri Subhash Chandra, Joint Commissioner-cum-Joint Registrar Co-operative was appointed the arbitrator. It is stated that the proceedings continued before the arbitrator, and judgment was reserved in the matter on 19th March, 2015. According to the petitioner on rd March, 2015, awards were delivered in Case Nos. 74 of 2014-15, 76 of 2014-15 and 77 of 2014-15. These awards have been brought on record of the writ petition as Annexure-2. It is stated in the writ petition that the awards have attained finality, and have not been challenged any further. Petitioner asserts that thereafter notices have been issued by the arbitrator calling upon petitioner to appear in proceedings of Arbitration Case Nos. 74 of 2014-15, 76 of 2014-15 and 77 of 2014-15, vide notice dated 2nd April, 2016. Date has been fixed for appearance in the matter on 27th April, 2016. It is at this stage that petitioner felt aggrieved, and has filed this petition. 3. The writ petition was entertained, and following orders were passed in the matter on 3rd May, 2016:- “The challenge in this petition is to the proceedings in respect of Misc. Case No. 74 of 2014-15, 76 of 2014-15 and 77 of 2014-15 before the Dy. Commissioner/Dy. Registrar Co-operative Societies, Meerut Division, Meerut. Sri Sujeet Kumar Rai, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 4. He submits that for the same cause of action the petitioner has filed another writ petition which is pending before the Division Bench and is likely to come up on 9th May, 2016. He has produced the copy of the aforesaid writ petition. I have perused the same and find in the said writ petition the cause of action arises out of Misc. Case No. 73 of 2014-15, 75 of 2014-15 and 78 of 2014-15. He has produced the copy of the aforesaid writ petition. I have perused the same and find in the said writ petition the cause of action arises out of Misc. Case No. 73 of 2014-15, 75 of 2014-15 and 78 of 2014-15. In view of above, the aforesaid petition is in respect of different proceedings and not those in relation to Case No. 74 of 2014-15, 76 of 2014-15 and 77 of 2014-15. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that all the above three cases have already been decided by the award dated 23.03.2015 passed by the Joint Commissioner/ Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Meerut. Therefore, the issuance of notices dated 2nd April, 2016 requiring the petitioner to appear and the participate in the said proceedings is wholly without jurisdiction. Sri R.S. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 submits that the awards dated 23.03.2015 which have been annexed with the petition are totally fake documents and are not part of the record of the proceedings and as such it is misconceived to allege that the above referred matters have decided. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2 is directed to obtain the record of the above proceedings from the office of the Joint Commissioner/Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Meerut and to produce the same before the court in a sealed cover on 10th May, 2016. Put up on 10th May, 2016.” 4. It further transpires that original records, pursuant to the directions issued on the previous occasion, were produced before the Court, and following orders were passed in the matter on 10th May, 2016:- “In pursuance of the order dated 3.5.2016 the learned standing counsel has produced the original record of the three cases. The order sheets reveals that the matter was heard by the Arbitrator on 19.3.2015 on merit and the order was reserved. Thereafter, on 29.4.2015 in presence of the representative of the society, on his application the case was adjourned. There is no order of 25.3.2015 on the order sheet, not even an order that the award had been pronounced. The copy of the award is also not part of the record. Thereafter, on 29.4.2015 in presence of the representative of the society, on his application the case was adjourned. There is no order of 25.3.2015 on the order sheet, not even an order that the award had been pronounced. The copy of the award is also not part of the record. Sri Umesh Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the award was pronounced on 23.3.2015 in the presence of the parties and a copy thereof bearing the signatures of the Arbitrator was supplied to the petitioner, a photocopy of which has been enclosed with the writ petition. He undertakes to produce the original copy supplied to him on the next date. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as referred to above and disclosed in the order dated 3.5.2016, it has to be ascertained, if any award, was pronounced by Mr. Subhash Kumar as Arbitrator on 23.3.2015 in the above three cases and if so, why it is not reflected in the order sheet and is not available on record. Even though Mr. Subhash Kumar, who was Arbitrator, is retired from the post of the Joint Commissioner-cum-Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U.P. Lucknow he is directed to appear before the court to explain his conduct in this regard. The learned standing counsel is directed to inform Mr. Subhash Kumar about this order and to remain present before the court on the next date. List on 26.5.2016, on which date he shall remain present. The original record is returned to the learned standing counsel for keeping it in safe custody and to retain it till the next date of listing.” 5. It may be noticed that the awards are stated to have been delivered by one Sri Subhash Chandra, in his capacity as an arbitrator, who has not been impleaded as a party to the writ petition. Respondent No. 4 is the present arbitrator in the proceedings, which are under challenge. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, Mr. Subhash Chandra, who was the arbitrator, appeared before this Court, and is also present today. An affidavit has been filed in the matter by him through his counsel Sri J.K. Tiwari, Advocate. Respondent No. 4 is the present arbitrator in the proceedings, which are under challenge. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, Mr. Subhash Chandra, who was the arbitrator, appeared before this Court, and is also present today. An affidavit has been filed in the matter by him through his counsel Sri J.K. Tiwari, Advocate. The arbitrator, who is stated to have delivered the awards, has stated that proceedings were pending before him, after he was named as an arbitrator by the Additional Registrar on 17.11.2014 for deciding the three cases in question. The arbitrator has following to state in support of the petitioner's contention that awards in fact had been delivered. Paragraphs 6 to 10 of the affidavit of compliance filed by Sri Subhash Chandra are reproduced:- “6. That vide orders dated 17.11.2014 issued by Addl. Commissioner Evam Addl. Registrar (Law) Cooperatives, U.P., Lucknow, deponent above named was appointed as an Arbitrator for deciding Arbitration Cases concerned i.e. Arbitration Cases Nos. 74/2014-15, 76/2014-15 and 77/2014-15 and deponent was further directed to give his award by 15.02.2015, which may be verified from the record of the department. 7. That the awards dated 23.03.2015 (Annexure No. 2 of the Writ Petition) was delivered by the deponent on 23.03.2015 at about 5:45 P.M. and copy of which were received by respondents concerned who were present before the deponent on 23.03.2015. 8. That at the initial stage of preparation of order sheet pertaining to aforesaid awards in question suddenly deponent felt uneasiness and unwell due to increase of high blood pressure and he left the office immediately on 23.03.2015 at about 6:00 P.M. with intention to get order sheet prepared on 24.03.2015 after recovery from sudden illness. 9. That vide order dated 24.03.2015 issued by Addl. Commissioner Evam Addl. Registrar (Law) Cooperatives, U.P., Lucknow the matter pertaining to aforesaid Arbitration Cases No. 74/2014-15, 76/2014-15 and 77/2014-15 were withdrawn from the deponent and for disposal of same Sri S.K. Dixit, Joint Commissioner Evam Joint Registrar Cooperative, Lucknow was appointed Arbitrator and he was directed to give award by 20.06.2015, which may be verified from the record of the department. 10. That in view of the issuance of the aforesaid order dated 24.03.2015 (Annexure No. A-2) issued by the Addl. Commissioner Evam Addl. 10. That in view of the issuance of the aforesaid order dated 24.03.2015 (Annexure No. A-2) issued by the Addl. Commissioner Evam Addl. Registrar (Law) Cooperatives, U.P., Lucknow the deponent above named could not completed preparation of order-sheet pertaining to award in question as he had become functus officio.” 6. A counter affidavit has been filed in the matter on behalf of respondent No. 5. So far as the making of the awards by the arbitrator, as alleged in the writ petition, is concerned, it is stated by the said respondent that in fact proceedings in arbitration were concluded on 19th March, 2015. However, no date was fixed in the matter, and the respondents were not informed at any stage that any award has been made. Delivery of awards on 23rd March, 2015 and serving its copies upon respondent No. 5 is denied. It is also brought on record before this Court that serious allegations were levelled against the then arbitrator Sri Subhash Chandra and prayer was made to change the arbitrator. It is stated that pursuant to such request made, an order dated 24th March, 2015 was passed, noticing the apprehension expressed by the parties that they are not likely to get justice at the hands of the then arbitrator, and consequently, the proceedings have been transferred. The proceedings from Sri Subhash Chandra were withdrawn and transferred to Sri S.K. Dixit, Joint Commissioner-cum-Joint Registrar. This order withdrawing the proceedings from Sri Subhash Chandra bears the date of 24th March, 2015. Similar orders have been passed in respect of all three case. It is stated by the respondents that no award till then had surfaced. It is also stated that the parties remained under the belief that proceedings of arbitration are pending, and that is why subsequent letters for change of arbitrator were made by other parties. Reliance has been placed upon a letter sent by Mrs. Asha Yadav dated 14.7.2015, in which request has been made to change the arbitrator. It is stated that Smt. Asha Yadav is one of the defendants in arbitration proceedings. Respondents have further brought on record a letter dated 5th October, 2015, which is signed by 05 persons, including present petitioner, which refers to the proceedings of the arbitration being continued before one Sri Rajeev Yadav. It is stated that Smt. Asha Yadav is one of the defendants in arbitration proceedings. Respondents have further brought on record a letter dated 5th October, 2015, which is signed by 05 persons, including present petitioner, which refers to the proceedings of the arbitration being continued before one Sri Rajeev Yadav. The letter of petitioner, which has been enclosed as Annexure-13 to the counter affidavit at page-65, reads as under:- ^^lsok esa] vk;qDr ,oa fucU/kd] lgdkjh lfefr;kWa mŒizŒ y[kuÅA fo"k; % e/;LFk okn la[;k&72] 73] 74] 75] 76] 77 ,oa 78 dh lquokbZ dh jktho ;kno la;qDr vk;qDr ,oa la;qDr fucU/kd@,eŒMhŒ iSd QSM vFkok eq[;ky; ds fdlh vU; vf/kdkjh ds ;gka LFkkukUrfjr fd, tkus gsrqA egksn;] d`i;k vius dk;kZy; i=kad la[;k 211&15] 206&10] 200&05] 195&99] 189&94] 183&88] 177&82@fof/k&3,@vkchZ okn fnukad 29 vizSy 2015 dk lUnHkZ xzg.k djus dh d`ik djsa tks fd mijksDr e/;LFk oknks esa fu;qfDr fo"k;d gSA vkids mijksDr lUnfHkZr i=kadks }kjk mDr e/;LFk oknksa dh lquokbZ gsrq Jheku~ la;qDr vk;qDr ,oa la;qDr fucU/kd lgdkfjrk esjB e.My] esjB Jh jktho ;kno th dks e/;LFk fu;qDr fd;k x;k FkkA mlds }kjk mDr e/;LFk oknksa dh lquokbZ yxHkx iw.kZ gks pqdh FkhA lquokbZ esa oknh izfrfuf/k ,oa izfroknhx.k mifLFkr gq, rFkk oknksRrj Hkh izLrqr fd;k x;kA oknh ds xokgkuksa dks mifLFkr gksus gsrq vfUre frfFk fnukad 18-06-2015 fu;r dh x;h Fkh ijUrq e/;LFk egksn; dk LFkkukUrj.k gks tkus ds dkj.k mijksDr e/;LFk oknksa dh lquokbZ LFkfxr gks x;h gSA blds vfrfjDr ;gka ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd lgdkfjrk foHkkx esjB e.My] esjB esa vc la;qDr vk;qDr ,oa la;qDr fucU/kd lgdkfjrk ds in Lrj dk dksbZ vf/kdkjh ugha gSA rFkk u gh vkxjk e.My dk {ks=kf/kdkj esjB e.My esa vkrk gSA vr,o ,slh fLFkfr esa mDr e/;LFk oknksa dh lgdkfjrk foHkkx esjB esa lquokbZ fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gS rFkk iwoZ e/;LFk egksn; }kjk oknksa dh lquokbZ Hkh yxHkx iw.kZ dh tk pqdh FkhA mijksDr ds dze esa vkils fuosnu gS fd mijksDr lUnfHkZr e/;LFk oknksa dks lquokbZ gsrq Jh jktho ;kno] la;qDr vk;qDr ,oa la;qDr fucU/kd lgdkfjrk@eSusftax Mk;jsDVj iSdQsM vFkok eq[;ky; y[kuÅ ds fdlh vU; vf/kdkjh ds ;gka LFkkukUrfjr djus dh d`ik djsaA vkids bl lg;ksx ds fy, izkFkhZx.k lnSo vkHkkjh jgsaxsA fnukad % 05-10-2015 izkFkhZx.k %& gŒ viBuh; ¼vfuy izdk'k nqcs½ gŒ viBuh; ¼;ksxs'k dqekj½ 154] flyoj Vkmu vkxjkA gŒ viBuh; ¼Hkksykjke½ gŒ viBuh; ¼lR;sUnz flag½ 14@1 'kfDruxj] vkxjk gŒ viBuh; ¼yksdiky flag½** 7. The respondents have contended that in fact no award was made and the alleged awards, which have been relied upon by the petitioner, are manufactured documents, which have been brought to their notice much after the proceedings stood withdrawn from the arbitrator Sri Subhash Chandra, who is subsequently stated to have retired on 30th April, 2015. Reliance has also been placed upon the provisions contained under Section 71 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, as well as Rules 244 to 246 framed under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968, which provide for the conduct of arbitration proceedings. Rules 244 to 246 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968, which are relevant for the present purposes, reads as under:- “244. The award shall contain the reasons on which the decision is based and shall also contain an order as to costs, if any, and interest including future interest, if any, and shall also mention the number of the reference, the names and description of the parties and particulars of the dispute. 245. A copy of the award shall be given to each party, certified and sealed, in such manner as the Registrar may direct by general or special order. 246. (a) Any award made by an arbitrator or board of arbitrators shall be sent by him or by the president of the board of arbitrators, as the case may be, with all the papers and proceedings of the dispute to the Registrar (who appointed the arbitrator or the president of the board of arbitrators in the case), within 15 days from the date on which the award is made. (b) Any document or record tendered by a party may, on application, be returned to the party after:- (i) the disposal of appeal, if any, or (ii) the period of filing appeal has expired and no appeal has been filed.” 8. The counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 5 has not been responded to by filing any rejoinder affidavit. Instead petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit today, entertainment whereof has been seriously objected to by the respondents. In the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, various allegations have been made against respondent No. 5, and various mala-fides have been alleged against him in the matter of conduct of affairs of the society. Instead petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit today, entertainment whereof has been seriously objected to by the respondents. In the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, various allegations have been made against respondent No. 5, and various mala-fides have been alleged against him in the matter of conduct of affairs of the society. It has also been stated that proceedings have been drawn against respondent No. 5, who was acting contrary to the interest of the society. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of submissions, has contended that the proceedings were sought to be influenced at the instance of the Chief Secretary, and a letter dated 16th June, 2015 has been brought on record at page-49 of the supplementary affidavit. It is suggested by the counsel for the petitioner that it was on account of interest exercised by the Chief Secretary that proceedings were being manipulated. 9. I have heard Sri Colonel Sanjay Sitanshu, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2, Sri R.S. Gupta and Sri Ashish Gupta for the respondent No. 5, Sri J.K. Tiwari has appeared for the arbitrator, who is stated to have passed the awards although he is not a party to the proceedings, and Sri Sujeet Kumar Rai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4. 10. Issue that requires consideration in the present writ petition is as to whether proceedings of arbitration in Case Nos. 74 of 2014-15, 76 of 2014-15 and 77 of 2014-15 stood concluded with delivery of awards by the then arbitrator or not on 23.3.2015, and in case it is found that awards have been delivered then how arbitration proceedings are being continued? 11. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the records of arbitration proceedings have been produced before this Court. The original records have been scanned by the Court, and the observations, which have been made after noticing and examining the records, vide order dated 10th May, 2016, are extracted above. It is undisputed between the parties that on 19th March, 2015, proceedings of arbitration were concluded. It is further admitted between the parties that on that date, no date was fixed for delivery of award. The original records of the arbitration proceedings, which have been produced before the Court, also contain no stipulation about fixation of any date on 23rd March, 2015 for delivery of award. It is further admitted between the parties that on that date, no date was fixed for delivery of award. The original records of the arbitration proceedings, which have been produced before the Court, also contain no stipulation about fixation of any date on 23rd March, 2015 for delivery of award. The original records, which have been produced before this Court also does not contain any award of the arbitrator. The copies of the award, however, have been enclosed alongwith the writ petition, genuineness whereof has been disputed by the respondents. The arbitrator in his affidavit has stated that he had delivered the awards on 23rd March, 2015 at 5.45 p.m. and it was received by the respondents concerned, who were present before the Court on 23rd March, 2015. Petitioner states that he was present on 23rd March, 2015, as the arbitrator had indicated in the open court on 19th March, 2015 that awards will be delivered on 23rd March, 2015. This stand of the petitioner as well as of the arbitrator appears to be contrary to the materials, which exists on record. The proceedings admittedly concluded on 19th March, 2015, and in the order-sheet, there is no endorsement of any date being fixed for delivery of the award. The arbitrator herein was conducting quasi-judicial proceedings and proceedings were required to have been duly reflected in the records. The stand taken by the arbitrator before this Court that awards were delivered on 23rd March, 2015, does not find support from the proceedings of the arbitration, which have been produced in original before this Court. 12. In order to further examine the stand of the arbitrator and the petitioner, it would be relevant to take note of the statutory scheme, which regulates the conduct of arbitration proceedings itself. Rule 244 states that the award shall contain the reasons on which the decision is based and shall also contain an order as to costs. Rule 245 thereafter provides that a copy of the award shall be given to each party, certified and sealed, in such manner as the Registrar may direct by general or special order. Rule 244 states that the award shall contain the reasons on which the decision is based and shall also contain an order as to costs. Rule 245 thereafter provides that a copy of the award shall be given to each party, certified and sealed, in such manner as the Registrar may direct by general or special order. Rule 246 provides that any award made by an arbitrator or board of arbitrators shall be sent by him or by the president of the board of arbitrators, as the case may be, with all the papers and proceedings of the dispute to the Registrar (who appointed the arbitrator or the president of the board of arbitrators in the case), within 15 days from the date on which the award is made. The statutory scheme makes it clear that as soon as an award is made by the arbitrator, he is enjoined in law to send the award alongwith all papers and proceedings of the dispute to the Registrar within 15 days. Copy of the award has to be given to each party, certified and sealed, in such manner as the Registrar may direct by general or special order. In the facts of the present case, it is to be noticed that in fact the awards delivered by the arbitrator have not even been claimed to have been sent to the Registrar in the manner contemplated alongwith the proceedings. No certified copy has been issued either to the petitioner or to the respondents. Unless the award is delivered in the manner contemplated in law, its delivery cannot be conceived in law. 13. In the facts of the present case, this Court finds that awards as well as proceedings have neither been sent to the Registrar nor its certified copies have been issued to the parties. This is a material aspect, which has to be borne in mind. The arbitrator in his affidavit has stated that after he delivered the awards, he felt uneasiness and he left his office at about 6.00 p.m. with intention to get the order-sheet prepared on 24th March, 2015. It is also stated by him that the proceedings were thereafter withdrawn from his office on 24th March, 2015 itself, and were transferred to another arbitrator, on account of which he could not make any endorsement regarding delivery of awards in the order-sheet. 14. It is also stated by him that the proceedings were thereafter withdrawn from his office on 24th March, 2015 itself, and were transferred to another arbitrator, on account of which he could not make any endorsement regarding delivery of awards in the order-sheet. 14. This Court, on the basis of materials adduced, finds that not only the records of arbitration proceedings do not speak about delivery of any award but even the parties including the petitioner were under a belief that arbitration proceedings are still pending. Reference has been made by the respondents to a letter sent by one of the persons, who is stated to be a party to the arbitration seeking transfer of the proceedings, vide letter dated 29th April, 2015. It is further to be noticed that petitioner himself has sent a letter on 5th October, 2015 objecting to the transfer of proceedings, on the ground that the arbitrator had fixed a date on 18th June, 2015, and proceedings had to be concluded on that date. Petitioner does not refer to making of any award by the arbitrator on 23rd March, 2015 in his letter. Contents of the letter signed by petitioner dated 5.10.2015 have already been extracted above. From the perusal of the letter sent by the petitioner himself, it is clear that petitioner was not aware about making of any award by the arbitrator, and he continued to appear in arbitration proceedings thereafter on subsequent dates, and reference has been made to the last proceedings on 18th June, 2015. 15. A counter affidavit has been filed and served upon the petitioner, but neither any reply has been filed, nor the letter annexed by the petitioner dated 5.10.2015 has been explained. The petitioner has filed subsequent affidavits including a supplementary affidavit, but his act of not filing a rejoinder affidavit clearly indicates that petitioner has nothing to state in opposition to the materials, which have been brought on record of the counter affidavit, particularly when the letter stated to have been sent by him on 5th October, 2015. This Court, therefore, is inclined to draw an inference that petitioner was not aware about making of any award by the arbitrator till 5th October, 2015. This Court, therefore, is inclined to draw an inference that petitioner was not aware about making of any award by the arbitrator till 5th October, 2015. It seems that proceedings of arbitration have subsequently been transferred to respondent No. 4, and at such subsequent stage, the petitioner in collusion with the then arbitrator has prepared awards, which have been annexed alongwith the writ petition to make out a case, as is being pleaded before this Court. The facts, which have been noticed, clearly go to show that neither the original records of the proceedings contain reference of awards, nor the awards have been sent to the Registrar, as was required under the Rules, and even certified copies have not been issued to the parties. The plea taken by the then arbitrator that he fell suddenly ill, does not merit any consideration, inasmuch as no supporting material has been brought on record to substantiate such plea of illness. Even otherwise, once the arbitrator was conducting the proceedings, and the awards were delivered on 23rd March, 2015, it was his duty to have maintained the proceedings accordingly, and his stand of delivery of awards having not been noticed in the order-sheet, due to his illness, lacks bona fide and is, therefore, not liable to be accepted. 16. In the facts and circumstances, as have been noticed above, this Court is inclined to hold that the alleged awards have not been delivered in the manner as is contemplated in law, and therefore, cannot be treated to be awards in the eyes of law. In the absence of proceedings being concluded with delivery of awards, the proceedings before the arbitrator are liable to be continued. 17. At this stage, it may also be noticed that though learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to make allegations of mala-fide against the Chief Secretary, but such allegation need to be examined by this Court in absence of the person concerned having been impleaded as a party to the proceedings. Law in this regard has been settled by the Apex Court in P.K. Jha Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2006 (9) SCC 458 and in R.K. Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. 2015 (1) SCC 642 and unless a person is made a party, allegation of mala fide cannot be looked into. Law in this regard has been settled by the Apex Court in P.K. Jha Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2006 (9) SCC 458 and in R.K. Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. 2015 (1) SCC 642 and unless a person is made a party, allegation of mala fide cannot be looked into. Although the conduct of the then arbitrator warrants making of observations against him in the matter, but as he has already retired, I refrain from making any further comment. 18. In view of the discussions made, it is held that no award in the eyes of law has been delivered on 23rd March, 2015, and the copy of the awards, which have been enclosed alongwith the writ petition as Annexure-2 are no award in the eyes of law. In the absence of there being any award delivered by the arbitrator, the proceedings before the arbitrator cannot be objected to. Writ petition, consequently, fails and is dismissed. 19. Since the proceedings before this Court are found to be an abuse of the process of law, the costs are reduced to Rs.1,000/- upon the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner, though with a heavy heart. The original records shall be returned to the office concerned.