E. PADMANABHAN, J.

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to letter No. 31476/G2/95-1, dated October 5, 1995, on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to take on file the appeal filed by the petitioner on August 31, 1995, against the award dated May 8, 1995, made in A.O.P. No. 60 of 1990 on the file of the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Salem, to give a personal hearing and dispose of the same on the merits in accordance with law.

This court ordered notice of motion on March 7, 1996, and the Government advocate was directed to produce a certified copy of the order, which the petitioner had produced along with the appeal memorandum.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. T. Kokilavani, appearing for the first respondent.

Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 have been given up.

The second respondent-chit fund company instituted arbitration in O.P. No. 60 of 1994 against the petitioner as well as the third and fourth respondents. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 have remained ex parte in the said arbitration proceedings on the file of the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Salem. The petitioner mainly contended before the Deputy Registrar of Chits that he was not aware of the chit transactions and he had never agreed to stand as a surety for the third respondent nor had he signed the chit promissory note besides contending that the documents were forged and fabricated. The said dispute has been raised by the second respondent-chit fund company and the petitioner contested the same and prayed for dismissal. Despite objections, the Deputy Registrar of Chits, after conducting the enquiry and after examination of witnesses, negatived the petitioner's objections and passed an award on May 8, 1995, directing the petitioner and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 to pay the claim with interest at 12 per cent. per annum.As against the award of the Deputy Registrar of Chits, an appeal is provided under section 70 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982, before the State Government. The petitioner presented the appeal on August 31, 1995. According to the petitioner, the appeal is within the time, as the time to furnish the certified copy of the award for the purpose of filing the appeal under section 70 of the Act has to be excluded.

The petitioner states that the first respondent by the impugned letter dated October 5, 1995, rejected the appeal as belated and the impugned order reads thus :

"I am directed to inform you that as per section 70 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982, any party aggrieved by any order passed by the Registrar or the nominee under section 69 of the Act, may within two months from the date of the order or award, appeal to the State Government. But your client's appeal against the order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Salem, in Case No. 60 of 1990 was filed only on August 31, 1995. Hence your client's appeal is belated and, therefore, rejected."

Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed. Admittedly, the award has been passed on May 8, 1995, by the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Salem, in A.O.P. No. 60 of 1990, the appeal has been presented on August 31, 1995. The said appeal has been rejected as belated by the impugned proceedings.

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, after passing of the award on May 8, 1995, the petitioner had applied for a copy of the award for the purpose of filing the appeal under section 70 of the Act on May 12, 1995, in C.A. No. 51 of 1995. The certified copy of the award was made ready and delivered to the petitioner on July 7, 1995. The appeal has been presented on August 31, 1995. As such, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the period from May 12, 1995, to July 7, 1995, has to be excluded while reckoning the period of limitation for preferring the appeal. It is also pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that without th