CWP No. 10239 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CWP No. 10239 of 2011 Date of decision: 5.7.2011 Rambhajan Singh ......Petitioner Versus The Additional Registrar (I) Cooprative Societies, Punjab .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.M.S.Kang, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 8.4.2011(Annexure P-8) and resolution dated 7.5.2010 (Annexure P-4). Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that respondent No.4 had been appointed as Saleswoman Essential Commodities vide resolution dated 11.8.1995. The essential commodities shop was CWP No. 10239 of 2011 2 running into loses and consequently, vide resolution dated 16.9.2003, it was resolved that the shop be closed so that the society be saved from unwanted loses. It was also resolved that in case the shop was re-opened by the society then the retrenched employee would be appointed on preferential basis. The appeal filed by respondent No.4 against the said order was dismissed by Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, vide order dated 18.4.2004. Revision petition filed by respondent No.4 was accepted by Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies and the case was remanded back to Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, for re-hearing the matter afresh. The society challenged the said order by filing CWP No.17484 of 2004 and the same was got dismissed as withdrawn. The Director Registrar Cooperative Societies set aside the resolution dated 16.9.2003 (Annexure P-1) vide order dated 13.4.2007. The said order was challenged by the Society by way of revision petition and the same was dismissed by Additional Registrar vide order dated 4.9.2008. The society challenged the said order by way of CWP No.19439 of 2008 and the operation of the impugned order was stayed by this Court vide order dated 17.11.2008. The President of the society without any reasonable cause issued an agenda for 7.5.2010 for appointment of respondent No.4. On 7.5.2010 a resolution was passed that respondent No.4 be appointed as saleswoman on preferential basis. The petitioner was a share-holder member of the society and ex-vice president of the committee which had passed the resolution Annexure P-1. The action of the society in appointing respondent No.4 as a saleswoman was illegal and had not been passed in accordance with law. The petitioner approached CWP No. 10239 of 2011 3 respondent No.2 by filing a petition seeking quashing of resolution Annexure P-4. However, the petition was dismissed by the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Patiala on the ground that the petitioner had no locus standi to file the petition as he was not a member of the managing committee, vide order dated 1.10.2010 (Annexure P-5). The petitioner challenged the order (Annexure P-5) by filing a petition before Registrar Cooperative Societies. However, the said petition was dismissed vide order dated 8.4.2011(Annexure P-8). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No.4 had been appointed as a saleswoman in gross violation of rules and provisions of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. Vide resolution dated 16.9.2003 (Annexure P-1), the Society decided to close the shop as it was running into loses. The saleswoman working on the shop was resolved to be retrenched after payment of retrenchment benefits admissible under law. It was further resolved that in case the society decided to restart the working of the shop then the retrenched employee shall be employed on preferential basis. The President of the society then served an agenda notice dated 19.4.2010 with regard to meeting to be held on 7.5.2010 to all the committee members of the society. As per the notice (Annexure P-3) agenda No.3 was with regard to appointment of respondent No.4 ex-saleswoman. Vide resolution passed qua CWP No. 10239 of 2011 4 meeting held on 7.5.2010, it was resolved that the society wanted to open the essential commodities shop again for expanding its business. Respondent No.4 was again appointed as saleswoman on preferential basis . It was further resolved that back wages would not be paid to respondent No.4 and the society would withdraw the case filed by it in this Court. During the course of arguments, it has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the society has withdrawn CWP No.19439 of 2008 in pursuance of the said resolution. Thus, the society had resolved at the time of closing of the shop itself that in case of it decides to re-open the shop then the retrenched employee shall be employed on preferential basis. In terms of the said resolution, respondent No.4 has been employed as saleswoman after the society decided to re-open the shop. The society cannot be forced to keep the shop closed. Apparently, in the year 2003, the shop had been closed as it was running into loses but now the society must have felt the need to again re-open the shop to expand its business. As per resolution (Annexure P-1), it was resolved that the society could decide to re-start the shop and the retrenched employee shall be employed on preferential basis and the petitioner had signed the resolution (Annexure P- 1) as president of the managing committee of the society. In these circumstances, at this stage, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the action of the society in appointing respondent No.4 as a saleswoman. Moreover, the Director, Registrar Cooperative Societies had set aside the resolution dated 16.9.2003 and the said order stands till date as the writ petition filed by the society challenging the order of Additional Registrar ( C), vide which the revision petition filed by the society against the order of Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies was dismissed, has been got dismissed as withdrawn. Respondent No.4 has given an CWP No. 10239 of 2011 5 affidavit that she will not claim back wages on her re-instatement. In these circumstances, no ground for interference by this Court is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 05, 2011 anita