CWP No. 12268 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 12268 of 2011 Date of Decision: 15.7.2011. Sohanbir Singh and others .......Petitioners Vs. The State of Haryana and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Ashok Tyagi, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... SABINA, J. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 5.9.2005 (Annexure P-7), 30.5.2002 (Annexure P-5), 21.8.2001 (Annexure P-4) and in consequence thereto notice dated 31.5.2011 (Annexure P-10), passed in execution proceedings. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Admittedly, petitioner No.3 Ashok Kumar had earlier filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 6223 of 2006 challenging the impugned orders (Annexures P-4, P-5 and P-7). The said petition was dismissed by this court vide order dated 25.4.2006 (Annexure P-8), wherein it was held as under:- 'To assail the orders passed, reliance has been placed upon a judgment of Civil Court Anneuxre P-3. CWP No. 12268 of 2011 -2- A perusal of the judgment referred to above, indicates that the dispute therein was with respect to enquiry report dated May 30, 1995, and the said report was declared null and void, having been passed contrary to the principles of natural justice. Vide that judgment, it was further held that no action be taken against the Managing Committee on the basis of the said enquiry report. No benefit of the judgment, referred to above, can be extended in the favour of the petitioner, as the dispute herein is altogether different. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to show from the record that the said enquiry report was made basis for passing the award under challenge. Both the authorities below by taking note of document on record, have given a pure finding of fact that the money was embezzled by the office bearers of the Managing Committee had withdrawn the amount from the banks without any justification and also were found guilty of manipulating the accounts by showing the payment made in favour of DLP, whereas the said payment was made in the accounts of Delicious Leasing and Finance Co. and not to the DLF. In view of the finding of fact given by the authorities below, no case is made out for interference. Dismissed.” Since the writ petition challenging the impugned CWP No. 12268 of 2011 -3- orders (Annexures P-4, P-5 and P-7) has already been dismissed by this court, the petitioners are precluded from challenging the same order by way of the present writ petition. The execution proceedings are liable to continue as the validity of the impugned orders (Annexures P-4, P-5 and P-7) were upheld by this court vide order dated 25.4.2006 (Annexure P-8). Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 15, 2011 Gurpreet