Civil Writ Petition No.18983 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 1.3.2011 Bagicha Singh and others ...Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.I.S.Saggu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Palwinder Singh, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent Nos.5 to 8, 10 to 13. Nemo for other respondents. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) The petitioners have instituted the instant writ petition, in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 29.9.2010 (Annexure P3), vide which, their election as committee members of the Mehdipur Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Limited (respondent No.4) (for brevity “respondent- Society”) has been set aside by the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies (respondent No.3) on the ground of its illegality and arbitrariness. 2. The respondent Nos.5 to 8 and 10 to 13 contested the claim of the petitioners and filed their joint written statement, inter-alia pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the writ petition, on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of challenging the impugned order (Annexure P3), cause of action and locus standi of the petitioners. The contesting respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record and legal provisions with their valuable assistance and after considering the Civil Writ Petition No.18983 of 2010 2 entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant writ petition is not directly maintainable at this stage. 4. As is evident from the record, that petitioners have challenged the impugned order (Annexure P3) passed by respondent No.3 under sections 55 and 56 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). 5. What is not disputed here is that any order passed under sections 55 and 56 is appealable under section 68 and appellate order is further revisable under section 69 of the Act. The preliminary objection/argument of learned counsel for contesting respondents that since the petitioners did not avail the statutory remedies of appeal and revision, so, their writ petition is not maintainable, has considerable force. This matter is not res integra and is well settled. 6. An identical question came to be decided by a Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 9.3.2004 rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.17761 of 2003 titled as “Pritam Singh vs. State of Punjab and others”. Having interpreted the relevant provisions, it was ruled as under:- “We have heard learned counsel representing the parties and examined the records of the case. Mr.I.S.Saggu, learned counsel for the petitioner, in his endeavour to show that the writ, despite availability of remedy of election petition, shall be competent, relies upon a judgment of Single Bench of this court in Sher Chand and others Vs. Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Ferozepur and others 1995 (1) PLR 260. Mr.Sharma, on the other hand, relies upon the judgment in Umesh Shivappa Ambi and others V. Angadi Shekara Basappa and others AIR 1999 SC 1566, to contend to the contrary. Having heard learned counsel and examining the record of the case, we are of the opinion that an alternative remedy by way of election petition is, indeed, available to the petitioner and in the facts and circumstances of this case, he has to be relegated to his alternative statutory remedy. The judgment of this Court in Sher Chand's case (supra) clearly mentions that the writ petition would be competent at the stage when the petitioner might have approached the Court before the Civil Writ Petition No.18983 of 2010 3 election result was declared. It is the positive case of the respondents in the present case that result of the election was declared on 5.11.2003. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the judgment of the Supreme Court will apply. The petitioner, in view of statutory alternative remedy available to him, is relegated to his ordinary remedy. In the facts and circumstances of this case, thus, judgment of this court in Sher Chand's case (supra) would not be applicable. It is the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, as relied by learned counsel representing the respondents, that would apply to the facts of the present case. The petitioner, in view of the statutory alternative remedy, is relegated to the said remedy.” The ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgment “mutatis mutandis” is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 7. As the petitioners have not availed their statutory remedy of appeal under section 68 and revision under section 69 of the Act, therefore, the present writ petition is not directly maintainable in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 8. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of hearing the appeal, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as being not maintainable at this stage. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge 1.3.2011 AS Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No