Ex parte arbitral award under co-operative law cannot be reopened by the same arbitrator after becoming functus officio.

An arbitrator under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 who passes an ex parte award in a claim proceeding becomes functus officio and, absent statutory authority in the Act or Rules, cannot entertain an application to set aside that award and restore the dispute for hearing. The remedy, if any, lies in appeal under the Act before the statutory tribunal, not in reopening the award before the same arbitrator. The judgment also indicates that extraordinary writ jurisdiction should not be invoked to bypass the statutory appellate framework. The application to set aside the ex parte award was therefore treated as incompetent, and interference under Article 226 was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether an arbitrator under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 had jurisdiction to entertain an application to set aside an ex parte award and restore the dispute for hearing, and whether interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was warranted.

Analysis: The dispute was referred under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and the arbitrator passed an ex parte award under Section 70(3) when the claimant did not appear. The judgment distinguished between the absence of power to dismiss an appeal for default in a statutory appellate tribunal and the power of an arbitrator in a claim proceeding to dismiss the claim when the claimant fails to appear or adduce evidence. It held that the arbitrator, after making the award, became functus officio and had no jurisdiction under the Act or the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 to entertain an application to set aside the award and restore the case. The Court also observed that the remedy, if any, lay in appeal under Section 82 before the Tribunal constituted under Section 81, and that extraordinary writ jurisdiction should not be used to defeat an opportunity to have the claim decided on merits.

Conclusion: The application to set aside the ex parte award was held to be incompetent, and interference under Article 226 was declined.

---