The captioned writ petitions are connected with respect to the question to be decided and therefore, I propose to dispose of the writ petitions together. The common question arising in the writ petitions is whether the Arbitration Court under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") has power to set aside an ex parte award. The facts may not have much bearing, but, however facts encapsulated are recited herein.

2. Petitioners in the writ petitions are defendants in ARC Nos.246/2011 and 328/2014 filed by the 2nd and 4th respondent banks respectively. The said arbitration cases are filed by the respective banks to recover the money due to it from the petitioners herein. Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.113719/2016 are legal heirs of one Raveendran Pillai, who stood as guarantor to the loan transactions. Consequent to the death of Raveendran Pillai, petitioners were impleaded, and had filed written statement refuting the contentions and claims and demands in the arbitration case. On 24.11.2015, when the case was taken up for consideration there was no representation and thereupon they were set ex parte and Ext.P1 award was passed. Petitioners received a copy of the same on 18.1.2016 and filed Ext.P2 petition to set aside the ex parte order. Ext.P2 petition was dismissed by Ext.P3 order holding that the application for setting aside the ex parte order is not maintainable and an appeal is to be filed before the Arbitration Tribunal. It is thus aggrieved by Ext.P3, writ petitioners have come up before this court.

3. Petitioners in WPC 18362/2016 availed a loan from the 4th respondent bank. Since repayment was defaulted, bank instituted proceedings. Even though, petitioners received notice from the Arbitrator, it is contended that, they could not attend the arbitration proceedings since the 1st petitioner, who is an asthma patient was taken to the hospital due to suffocation while they were proceeding to attend the arbitration case. Thereafter petitioners received ex parte arbitration award on 17.12.2015. Then only petitioners came to know that they were set ex parte in the above arbitration case. Petitioners immediately filed Ext.P3 petition to set aside the ex parte award. But as per Ext.P4, the same was declined stating that, the Arbitrator has already returned the files to the Joint registrar of Co- operative Societies along with the award and therefore, the application filed by the petitioners cannot be considered. Thereafter, petitioners have filed Ext.P5 before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies seeking direction to the Arbitrator to consider Ext.P3 application. Having not secured the relief from any of the respective parties, petitioners have approached this court by filing the writ petitions.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader and the counsel appearing for the respective parties.

5. The questions to be considered in W.P.(C) No.13719/2016 are whether the Arbitrator was right in holding that since the award is passed by the Arbitrator the same cannot be re-considered by the Arbitrator again, for want of power to set aside the ex parte award and whether any implied power is available to set aside the award in the absence of any specific provision under the Act and Rules ? It is true that under Section 70 of the Act, Arbitrator is not vested with any power to set aside an ex parte award even though during the pendency of the proceedings Arbitrator is vested with powers under sub-section(2) of Section 70 to make such interlocutory orders as it may deem necessary in the interest of justice. That apart sub-section (3) provides, certain powers, vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to the Arbitrator. But there also there is no specific power vested in the Arbitrator to set aside the ex parte award. There are no provisions under the Co- operative Societies Rules enabling the Arbitrator to set aside an award. Therefore, the question