' The facts constituting the background of this litigation, have been enumerated in my order dated 7-7-1979 passed in W.P.No, 3579/78 and, therefore, need not be reiterated. For the purposes of the decision of this writ petition, which is the second round of litigation between the parties, before this Court, it would suffice to observe that against the award dated 27-4-1980 the respondent-Bank now Corporation moved objection petitions, expressing their grievance that they were entitled to compound interest. On the other hand, the writ petitioners also filed objections challenging the validity of the award. Both the matters were fixed for hearing before the Industrial Assistant Registrar for 28-3-1983 when neither the writ petitioners nor their counsel entered appearance.
Consequently, the I.A.R. dismissed their objection petition and further proceeded expert against them in the objection petition brought by the Corporation.
2. The petitioners' case is, that on 31-3-1983, they moved two applications before the I.A.R. one for setting aside the ex parte order dated 28-3-1983 and the other for restoration of their objection petition, but without adverting to these applications, by his order dated 22-9-1983, he illegally accepted the Corporations' objection petition; modified the award and allowed the compound interest. It is to be seen, that this order was assailed by the petitioners by means of a revision under section 64-A of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925. One of the contention urged by them, before the learned revision authority, was, that the main case could not have been heard and decided by the I.A.R. without disposing of the applications aforesaid. However, this plea was turned down, with the observation that the applications were not on the file when the matter was decided by the I.A.R.
The order dated 28-11-1983 passed by the learned revision authority, is sought to be removed through judicial review.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record brought by the departmental authorities. The two applications dated 31-3-1983 undoubtedly are on the file of the I.A.R. and marked to him, with the following endorsement, made by his Head Clerk, namely, Kh.Saleh-ud-Din who also acted as his Reader:- "Submitted for f/o perusal and ordeRs, Sd/- Salah-ud-Din."
4. Under the preceding order it was directed that Kh.Salah-ud-Din would appear in the Court. He is present today and I have made enquiries from him, in the presence of the I.A.R. and the learned counsel for the parties. According to him, both the applications were handed over to him by the petitioners' counsel, on 31-3-1983, towards the close of the working hours and he made endorsement aforesaid on 2-4-1983 as 1-4-1983 was the Friday. He further states that thereafter Mr.Ahmad Ali Khan, the Industrial Assistant Registrar, who was hearing the case, did not conduct any proceedings and went on leave. In his absence, Mr.Ghulam Nabi Gill, Circle Registrar held the additional charge of the office of the I.A.R. but he did not hear the cases. He went on to submit, that it was on resumption of the charge by Mr,Ahmad Khan after the expiry of his leave, that he heard the matter and passed the order dated 22-9-1983 but in doing so he did not take notice of the petitioners' applications.
5. I am inclined to rely upon the version given by Kh.Salah-ud-Din.He is a senior official of the department and holds 35 years' service to his credit. There is no reason to disbelieve him.
Seemingly, in this behalf, the learned revision authority did not go, deep into this point, and examined the issue, in a somewhat perfunctory manner. The learned counsel for the Corporation have vainly endeavored to support the impugned order on the ground, which influenced the decision of the revision authority but I am not persuaded by their submission. Having seen the record and made enquiry from the official concerned, I am A satisfied that the applications were duly filed by the petitioners but the I.A.R. while passing the order dated 22-9-1983 over-looked the same. It was his obligation to dispose of the applications before giving ex parte decision against the petitioneRs, In this view of the matter, the order dated 22-9-1983 has got to be declared to have been passed without lawful authority. The failure of the revision authority, to set aside the illegal orders of the I.A.R. amounts to refusal to exercise jurisdiction lawfully vesting in it.
6. During their arguments the learned counsel for the Corporation pointed out that the petitioners obtained a loan from the Co-operative Bank, now National Industrial Co-operative Finance Corporation, but have been avoiding clearing their liability under the cover of the prolonged litigation. They, therefore, prayed that the petitioners may be directed to clear, at least, the admitted liability.
7. The grant of relief under the writ jurisdiction is discretionary and in appropriate cases, as deemed fit by the Court, may be subjected to certain conditions. As to the amount due from the petitioners, the parties have raised conflicting claims. I, however, feel that without prejudice to their rights in the main case, it would meet the ends of justice, if the acceptance of the instant writ petition is made conditional upon the deposit of Rs,2,50,000 by the petitioners with the respondent-Corporation by 30th of September, 1984. Needless to mention, that this deposit shall be adjustable against the amount found finally due from them and shall be refundable to them, in case there is no liability.
Accordingly, subject to the deposit of the said amount, this writ petition is allowed; the aforesaid orders of the revision authority and the I.A.R. are set aside and the case is sent back to the latter with the direction to dispose of the petitioners' applications in accordance with law. In case the applications are disallowed, orders of the I.A.R. and the revision authority shall prevail. If the amount in question is not deposited by the petitioners within the said time limit the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.