A.P. SEN, J.—This writ petition by M/s. Nehru Motor Transport Co-operative Society Ltd., Jodhpur, is directed against an order of the Rajasthan State Co-operative Tribunal Rajasthan, Jaipur, dated 29-7-1976, rejecting an appeal preferred by it under sec. 123 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that it was not maintainable, and that dated 12-11-1976 dismissing an application for review preferred by it.

2. Respondent No, 4 Ramchandra, who is a member of the petitioner society, raised a dispute under sec. 75 of the Act claiming that a sum of Rs. 16,143.50 p. was due to him from the Society. In his statement of claim, the respondent No. 4 asserted that various sums were deposited by him with the Society in his own name and in the name of his relations. In its written statement, there is an admission by the Society of these allegations, though it pleaded that the claim having been preferred beyond the period of limitation prescribed therefore, the claim should not be entertained. The s>le arbitrator by his award dated 5-1-1976 decreed the claim. The Rajasthan State Co-operative Tribunal Jaipur, by its order dated 29-7 1976 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner holding that the award being by consent of the parties, the appeal was not maintainable. Thereupon, the petitioner preferred a review on the ground that Explanation to sec. 1.23 incorporates by reference sec. 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure and not sec. 96 and, therefore, sec. 96(3) of the Code was not applicable, so as to preclude the appeal. The Tribunal by its order dated 12-11-1976, however, rejected the contention.

3. The order of the Tribunal was assailed on several grounds, namely, (i) the Court is not entitled to read words into a section and, therefore, the Tribunal was in error in reading sec 96 in sec. 123, (ii) the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator under sec. 75(1)(b) is confined to settling disputes between a member and Society. Admittedly, some of the amounts claimed belonged to other who were not members of the Society and, therefore, the award was nullity, (iii) the Arbitrator having failed to render the award within the period of three months as fixed in the letter of appointment Ex. 13, the award was illegal and void and, therefore, cannot be acted upon There is, in my view no substance in any of these contentions.

4. None of these points were ever raised at any stage of the proceedings before the Tribunal or the Arbitrator.

5. It is well settled that a question not raised before the Tribunal cannot be taken for the first time in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. It the matter of issue of a writ of Certiorari, the High Court exercises a special jurisdiction and not ordinary jurisdiction and that a question of jurisdiction can not be allowed to be raised on a petition when no objection to the jurisdiction had been taken before the Tribunal whose order or proceedings are being challenged.

6. In the case of the King vs. Williams Exparte Philips (1), where a man applied for a writ of certiorari to quash an order made by Justices on the ground that one of the Justices was an interested party, it was held that the applicant was not entitled to the writ ex debito justitiae because knowing the disqualification he bad chosen to stand by during the hearing before the Justice without taking any objection. Channell J , pointed out—

"No objection was taken to the jurisdiction of the Court below at the hearing before that Court; that being so, it is the rule of this Court not to grant a writ of certiorari except upon an affidavit which negatives knowledge on the part of the applicant when he was before the Court below of the facts on which he bases his objection. That rule is established on good grounds. It applies equally whether the objection is on grounds which make the act of the justices voidable or void."

He then observed at page 614: —

"A party may by his conduct preclude himself from cl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document