IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2999 of 2008 Decided on : July 13, 2010 Devi Singh Jishtu …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2-State. Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. B.M. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner and respondent No.4 are the members of Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, which is a Co-operative Society. Both of them were candidates for the post of Chairman of respondent No.3. Election was held. Respondent No.4 was elected, petitioner lost. Now, the case of the petitioner is that respondent No.4 had drawn TA, in excess of what was due to him, in the year 1999-2000 and, therefore, he was a defaulter, within the meaning of Rules 2(xix) and 41(2)(i) Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… of Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1971 and, hence, he was disqualified from contesting the election. His case is that an inquiry was conducted, which found that respondent No.4 had defaulted, but now respondents No.1, 2 and 3 are not taking any action against him, despite such inquiry. 3. Admittedly, respondent No.4 has challenged the inquiry report, by filing a statutory revision petition, which is pending before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, and the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, impleaded as respondent No.2, has stayed further action in the matter, on the strength of the inquiry report. Since respondent No.4 has a statutory right to challenge the inquiry report and he, in exercise of that right, has filed a revision petition, which is still pending, the present writ petition is pre-mature. The same is, therefore, dismissed. 4. However, a direction is issued to respondent No.2 to dispose of the revision petition of respondent No.4, against the inquiry report, within two months from today. In case respondent No.2 finds that revision does not lie to him but it lies to the State Government, then within one month from today, he will submit the record of the revision petition to the State Government and the State Government, which is impleaded as respondent No.1, shall then dispose of the same, within two months from the date …3… of the receipt of the record of revision petition, in accordance with the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Co- operative Societies Act. Particulars of the revision petition are: Case No.207 of 2009, titled as Sher Singh Chauhan versus Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Kasumpti, through its Managing Director. Writ petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of, as having become infructuous. July 13, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J