C.W.P.No.17066 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.17066 of 2011 Date of Decision:25.11.2011 The Punjab State Federation of Co-operative House Building Societies Ltd. ...Petitioner Vs. Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies (I), Punjab & Ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Amit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) The compendium of the facts, which requires to be noticed, for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that Vinod Dewan son of Jaman Lal Dewan (respondent No.4) was the member of The Pakhowal Housing Complex Cooperative House Building Society Ltd.-respondent No.5 (for brevity “the primary society”), whereas petitioner-apex body, The Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Societies Ltd. (for short “the petitioner-Housefed”) is registered under the provisions of The Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 and the rules framed thereunder (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act and relevant rules”). He (respondent No.4) was allotted a flat, bearing No.503/1 under the scheme of Cooperative Housing Complex, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana on 21.2.1997. Petitioner was claimed to have already paid a sum of `, 2,70,000/- in instalments on account of cost of dwelling unit. According to respondent No.4, the society has illegally and arbitrarily cancelled his allotment and forfeited the indicated amount, without any legal basis and did not refund the amount to him, despite repeated requests, which necessitated him (respondent No.4) to raise a dispute (Annexure P8) under section 55 of the Act and relevant rules. C.W.P.No.17066 of 2011 -2- 2. The societies have refuted the claim of petitioner and filed the written statement (Annexure P9) and prayed for dismissal of the reference petition. The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies-respondent No.3 (arbitrator) negatived the claim of petitioner, by virtue of order dated 12.6.2006 (Annexure P10). 3. Dissatisfied with the order (Annexure P10), respondent No.4 filed the appeal under section 68 of the Act, which was accepted and the Deputy Registrar -respondent No.2 (appellate authority) directed the societies to refund the initial amount deposited by the allottee, after deducting 10% of the amount with interest at the rate of 15% till date, by means of impugned order dated 17.1.2008 (Annexure P11). 4. Aggrieved by the order (Annexure P11), the petitioner-Housefed filed the revision petition (Annexure P12), which was dismissed as well by the Additional Registrar (Administration ) -respondent No.1, exercising the revisional powers under section 69 of the Act, through the medium of impugned order dated 13.8.2010 (Annexure P15). 5. The petitioner-Housefed did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned orders (Annexures P11 & P15), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for petitioner-Housefed, going through the record with his valuable assistant and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present writ petition in this context. 7. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the allottee- respondent No.4 has violated the terms and conditions of the contract of allotment of the dwelling unit, so, the appellate and revisional authorities committed a legal mistake in entertaining his claim at this belated stage, sans merit. 8. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that the dwelling unit in C.W.P.No.17066 of 2011 -3- question was allotted to respondent No.4 and he has paid a sum of ` 2,70,000/- in different instalments indicated therein. According to respondent No.4 that the society has illegally cancelled his allotment and forfeited the amount, without any legal basis. As per clause of the allotment, only 10% of the amount was liable to be forfeited in case of default by the allottee. It is also not a matter of dispute that the dwelling unit in question has already been sold by the society and has recovered its entire sale consideration from the subsequent allottee. Therefore, to me, the Deputy Registrar has rightly ordered the refund of the initial amount deposited by respondent No.4, after deducting 10% of the amount with interest at the rate of 15% till date, by virtue of impugned order (Annexure P11), the operative part of which is as under:- “After perusal of record and after hearing argument of both the sides, I have come to conclusion that an application for allotment of flat was submitted to respondent on behalf of the appellant on the basis of which a flat No.503/1 was allotted to him by the respondent, consideration of which Rs.2,55,000/- was also deposited by appellant with respondent. Out of above, Rs.1,70,000/- was duly deposited by the appellant within stipulated time. Due to non deposit of entire consideration within stipulated time with the respondent, the flat allotted to the appellant was canceled by the respondent. For which, as per the conditions mentioned in the prospectus issued by the respondent, by way of deducting 10%, an amount of Rs.17,000/- was liable to be deducted and thereafter an amount of Rs.85,000/- is deposited by the appellant with the respondent. Neither any flat was given to the appellant by the respondent nor was any loan advanced. Respondent has already received full consideration of the flat by allotting the same to other member after canceling the allotment of the appellant. In this way, no loss has been suffered to the respondent. Therefore, the amount deposited by the appellant is liable to be refunded in the light of principles of natural justice. Therefore, this appeal of the appellant is accepted and award dated 12.6.06 passed by the arbitrator is set aside and it is directed that the respondent is to refund the initial amount deposited by the respondent No.3 after deducting 10% amount to Rs.2,38,000/- with interest @ 15% till date.” 9. Not only that, the order (Annexure P11) was upheld by the revisional C.W.P.No.17066 of 2011 -4- authority, through the medium of impugned order (Annexrue P15). 10. At the same time, the learned counsel for petitioner did not point out any legal violation and material, much less cogent, to show as to how and in what manner, the impugned orders (Annexures P11 & P15) are illegal and would invite any interference in this relevant direction. 11. Meaning thereby, the appellate and revisional authorities have recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant connection in the impugned orders. Such orders, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the limited jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioner, so, the impugned orders deserve to be and are hereby maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 12. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for petitioner. 13. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 25.11.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter ?Yes/No