IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 750 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : MARCH 5, 2009 YASH PAL PANWAR ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Surender Lamba, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Anjun Ahmad, Addl. AG, Haryana. Mr. Pardeep Solath, Advocate, for respondents No.4 & 5. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 7.1.2009 (Annexure P-6) whereby interim order dated 24.12.2008 (Annexure P-4) has been vacated. It seems that Resolution dated 24.10.2008 was passed by respondent No.6-Society thereby nominating one of its Committee members to represent the Society from Zone No.2 in the affairs of the Bhiwani Central Cooperative Bank Limited. The petitioner raised an objection and the same was rejected without passing a speaking order. Civil Writ Petition No. 750 of 2009 2 Aggrieved by the Resolution, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.3 i.e. Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Bhiwani. On 12.12.2008, respondent No.3 heard the arguments and reserved the order. Till 23.12.2008, the order was not pronounced and, therefore, the petitioner filed a revision petition before respondent No.2 i.e. Special Secretary to Government of Haryana, Cooperation Department, Chandigarh, challenging Resolution dated 24.10.2008. Respondent No.2, on appreciating the pleas of the petitioner and finding that the Resolution had not been passed by the required 2/3rd majority, stayed the election of Zone No.2 till further orders, vide order (Annexure P-4). While the revision was pending before respondent No.2, an appeal/revision for vacation of stay was filed before the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary, Government of Haryana, Cooperation Department (respondent No.1). The appeal/revision was entertained and the stay was vacated by respondent No.1. It is against this order that this petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the respondent-State states that the revision petition has been decided in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, no cause of action survives. In view of the statement of the learned counsel for the respondent-State, this petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. March 5, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE