IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ PetitionNo.4438 of 1991 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.11.2011 Surat Singh and others .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab, and others. ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Prem Singh Bhangu, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Harit Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) The petitioners seek for setting aside the appointments made by respondents 4 to 6 as Secretaries in Cooperative Housing Building Society. Notice of motion had been ordered in the year 1991 and after serving notices and taking the written statements, the Court found on 18.11.1991 that the respondents 4 to 6, who had been appointed were not served and the Bench had directed the matter to come up after service. The Registry has identified several of the cases where parties have not been served and taken specific Civil Writ PetitionNo.4438 of 1991 (O&M) - 2 - direction from Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice for the mode of disposal. The case has been directed to be posted before this Court. I still not find that the respondents 4 to 6 whose selection was sought to be assailed are not served. The petitioners would seek the consideration of the case on merits and that no fault could be attributed to the petitioners for what the Court could not do. The petitioners have, on the other hand, certain responsibilities to ensure that the persons against whom cases have filed are served within a reasonable time by giving correct particulars of service. If the petitioners could wait for 20 years without serving on respondents 4 to 6, it is impossible for addressing the case on merits at this length of time. It will be inefficacious for any organization to be called upon to draft the selection panel for consideration of selection of the petitioners and oust persons who have continued in office for 20 years or more. I have no reason to suspect that there has been any illegality committed. The writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 22.11.2011 sanjeev