The main legal point established in the judgment is that recovery claims become time-barred due to inordinate delay by the authorities, and negligent conduct precludes the recovery of time-barred amounts.

Sandeep Sharma,J.

By way of present petition the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs amongst other:-

“(i) That the respondents may be directed to produce the entire record of the case and the proceedings initiated by respondent No.3 may kindly be declared to be illegal and wholly without jurisdiction and beyond the period of limitation prescribed by law and may kindly be quashed.

(ii) that the amount sought to be recovered by respondents 1 & 2 may kindly be declared to be time barred and the respondent be restrained from recovering the same in any manner whatsoever from the petitioners.

(iii) that the notice dated 13.8.2009 (Annexure P-7) as well as the claim petition (Annexure P-8), as well as proceedings pursuant thereto may kindly be quashed.

(iv) That the respondents be directed not to resort to coercive measures in order to recover the time barred amounts from the petitioners and the petitioners be declared to be not liable for paying the same.”

2. Bare perusal of the averments contained in this writ petition suggests that the petitioners are aggrieved with the notice dated 13.8.2009, Annexure P-7, issued by the Arbitrator i.e. respondent No.3 in Arbitration Case No.1 of 2009, calling upon the petitioners to appear personally or through authorized agent before him alongwith original record on the given date.

3. Necessary facts, which emerges from the pleadings, are that the predecessor-in-interest and father of the petitioners, namely, Shri Tenzin S/o Sh.Tuk Tuk, resident of Village Keylong, District Lahaul & Spiti, (HP) was appointed as a Depot Holder of Food Grains in the year 1969 by the then Punjab Government for the supply of Food Grains to the general public in the Lahaul & Spiti area. Documents annexed with the reply filed by the respondents also suggests that one agreement dated 10.11.1969 (Annexure R-1) was entered into at that time with the aforesaid predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and the then Punjab Government through Deputy Commissioner, Lahaul & Spiti, District at Keylong.

4. Since Lahaul & Spiti was snow bound area and use to remain cut off for six months in a year, the Government had taken a decision to appoint depot holder for sale and receipts of food-grains at Village Keylong. The depot holder was given the stocks of food-grains on consignment basis i.e. on credit basis by the Government on the understanding that he, after selling the food-grains to the public on cash, will deposit the money in to the Government Treasury within a period of six months from the date of sale. As per the aforesaid arrangement, late Shri Tenzin continued to serve as depot-holder of food-grains from the year 1969 till his death i.e. 19th October, 1971.

5. Perusal of Annexure P-1 suggests that District Controller, Food Civil Supplies & Consumers Affairs, Lahaul & Spiti at Keylong sent an intimation to Shri Tenzin with a direction to deposit an amount of Rs.7969.64 paise on account of selling food-grains, in the Government Treasury within a period of two days. However, endorsements made below Annexure P-1 also suggests that Shri Tenzin submitted that since he is ill for the last 2½ months, he will settle the accounts once he recovers from the illness. Fact remains that Shri Tenzin could not deposit the amount in question and, ultimately, he passed away on 19.10.1971.

6. Subsequently, Deputy Commissioner, Lahaul & Spiti vide his letter dated 20.12.1971, appointed one Shri Sonam son of Shri Kunga as a depot holder, who was handed over the charge of food-grains stock of Shri Tenzin in the presence of one Angrup, who was alleged to be representative of Smt.Pulzon widow of Shri Tenzin. However, subsequently, it was reported in the office note that there was shortage in the quantity of food-grains for the year 1968-69 to 1970-71, amounting to Rs.97,568.18 paise only.

7. Respondents, after recording alleged shortage, did not take any action to recover the outstanding amount for almost 10 years. It is only in the ye