ORDER

Petitioner is questioning the notice dated 07/07/2018 and the award dated 03.08.2018.

2. The notice is issued by the Co-operative Development Officer, Belthangady and award is also passed by the same officer under Section 71 of the Karnataka Co- operative Societies Rules, 1959. Pursuant to the award, one more notice was issued at Annexure - C which is dated 18.12.2021 attaching the properties of the petitioner. The award is passed in favour of the Co-operative Society which is arrayed as respondent No.4.

3. Admittedly, the notice at Annexure - A which is issued by the Co-operative Development Officer/respondent No.3 called upon the petitioners to appear before him on 03.08.2018 pursuant to claim filed by the respondent No.4/bank. On the same day, the award is passed and the petitioner was not present on that day. Petitioner claims that notice is not served on the petitioner and award is passed without hearing the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would refer to Rule 31 of the Karnataka Co-operative Society Rules, 1959 and would contend that the award is passed in contravention of the aforementioned rules wherein the rule requires sufficient opportunity to be given to the party before passing the award. Thus, he would contend that the award is untenable and consequently, Annexure - C is also untenable. In addition to that the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that Co-operative Development Officer has no jurisdiction to issue notice and he could cannot act as an arbitrator under Section 71 of the Act. Thus, he would contend that the order is passed without jurisdiction.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent/Society would contend that despite the notice being served, petitioner did not appear before the arbitrator and the award is passed by considering the documents placed on record and there is no justification in entertaining the writ petition. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. Learned Government Advocate would contend on the premise that under Section 71 of the Co-operative Societies Act, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is competent to appoint any person as an arbitrator and the Co-operative Development Officer has acted as an arbitrator and the award is in accordance with the requirements of Section 71 and no exception can be taken to the award on the premise that the Co-operative Development Officer has no authority to pass the award.

7. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar.

8. Admittedly, the notice at Annexure - A which is issued by the Co-operative Development Officer directed the petitioner to be present on 03.08.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner did not appear before the Co-operative Development Officer. The impugned award reveals that the petitioner who was 2nd defendant before the Co-operative Development Officer was absent. However, the award does not speak anything about the stand taken by the petitioner who was the 1st defendant before the Co-operative Development Officer. It is not forth coming from the award whether the 1st respondent has sought adjournment, whether the documents were furnished to the 1st respondent to substantiate his claim and it is also relevant to note that in the notice sent vide Annexure - A, the claim petition filed by the bank is not enclosed. It is not forth coming from the award that the claim petition submitted by the society and the copies of the documents produced by the society were furnished to the 1st respondent before the Co-

operative Development Officer.

9. From the manner in which the award is passed, it is very much apparent that an opportunity which is required to be given to the parties to the proceeding is not afforded. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned award is to be set-aside. Consequently, the impugned notices at Annexures - A and C are also set-aside.

10. Hence, the following:

ORDER (i) The impugned award dated 03.08.2018 passed by the Co-operative Devel