1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4184 of 2025 Decided on: 14.07.2026 Kusum Kumari …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P and others ..Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Respondent No.5 ex parte. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner’s grievance is to the order dated 17.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.3- the Deputy Registrar (Audit), Cooperative Societies, Himachal Pradesh, whereby petitioner’s appeal preferred under Section 93 of the Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1968 (in short ‘the Act’) was dismissed. 2. Heard and considered the case file. 3. In a dispute raised by the petitioner, the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bilaspur 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 appointed Inspector, Cooperative Societies, Sadar, District Bilaspur as an Arbitrator on 15.10.2024 (Annexure P-3) under Section 73(c) of the Act with directions to decide the matter within four months. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, Inspector, Cooperative Societies, Development Block Sadar, District Bilaspur furnished a report on 29.03.2025 (Annexure P-2) for further necessary action to the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bilaspur. 4. Petitioner preferred appeal under Section 93 of the Act against the report furnished by the Inspector, Cooperative Societies, Development Block Sadar, District Bilaspur. This appeal was dismissed by the respondent No.3 on 17.10.2025 as under:- “After examining the record, it has been observed that on the directions of the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies Bilaspur vide his letter dated 15- 10-2024, Smt. Kritika Thakur, Inspector Cooperative Society Sadar Distt. Bilaspur was appointed as Arbitrator under Section 73(C) of the H.P. Coop. Societies Act, 1968 to resolve the dispute. Although the Arbitrator submitted her findings in form of a report, it contains clear findings and decision by the Arbitrator. The said findings have come after giving due opportunity of being heard to all concerned. The appellant was involved in the whole process and was very much aware that proceedings u/s 72 are being taken up against her. No objection to the process was raised during arbitrations proceedings. It is also observed that the present appeal is hopelessly time bound and no reasoning was provided to justify the delay. 3 As such, the present appeal is dismissed being non maintainable. No order as to cost. Announced. Let the file to be consigned to be record.” While dismissing the appeal, the Deputy Registrar (Audit) has somehow presumed existence of an award passed by the Inspector, Cooperative Societies, Development Block Sadar, District Bilaspur. Although there is no award in existence, the Inspector, Cooperative Societies had only forwarded the report for further necessary action. In fact, the petitioner’s appeal against the aforesaid report was not even maintainable. There was no award in existence which could have been appealed against by the petitioner. The order passed by respondent No.3, therefore, cannot be countenanced. Additionally, the order passed by respondent No.3 deciding the so called appeal preferred by the petitioner even otherwise is absolutely non- speaking. The main part of the order (extracted above) is only to the effect that the Arbitrator had heard learned counsel on both sides and returned the findings after due opportunity to all concerned. The issues raised by the petitioner on merits of the matter have not been discussed in the impugned order. Be that as it may, since it has already been held that there was no award in existence, therefore, appeal 4 filed by the petitioner under Section 93 of the Act against non- existence award was not maintainable. Accordingly, impugned order dated 17.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) is set- aside. The respondents shall proceed further in the matter by passing the award in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 14, 2026 Judge yogesh