L.P.A. No. 1732 of 2011 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … L.P.A. No. 1732 of 2011 Date of decision: 31.10.2011 Anil Kumar Lamdharia ..Appellant Versus U.T.Chandigarh and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Narain Raina Present: Mr. Anil Kumar Lamdharia, Appellant in person. Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Sr. Standing Counsel for U.T.Chandigarh. Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos.6 to 12. .. 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? M.M.Kumar,ACJ. 1. The instant Letters Patent Appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 26.8.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court disposing of the writ petition at the first date of hearing. The learned Single Judge notice the contention of the writ petitioners-respondents that an appeal was pending before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies-respondent No.3 and the same was not being decided; and therefore, election of the appellant-respondent No.4 was not being held. It is appropriate to mention that appellant has been the transferee of the share of the original members. The submission by writ petitioners-respondent Nos.6 to 12 was made on that basis. The writ L.P.A. No. 1732 of 2011 2 petitioners-respondents made a prayer before the learned Single Judge for issuance of direction to decide the appeal by the Joint Registrar- respondent No.3 within the period to be fixed by the Court. Accordingly, on the first date of hearing, learned Single Judge accepted the prayer made by the writ petitioners-respondents without expressing any opinion on merits and the maintainability of the appeal. The Court also directed respondent No.3 to take a decision on the appeal in accordance with law within a period of 30 days. The writ petition was disposed of with the aforesaid directions. 2. Mr. Anil Lamdharia appearing in person has argued that respondent Nos.6 to 12 who are petitioners had no locus standi to approach this Court by seeking direction to the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies for deciding the appeal because they were not party to the appeal pending before the Joint Registrar. Mr. Lamdharia has further argued that there was active concealment of fact and election programme had already been issued on 18.8.2011 and had that fact been disclosed then no direction could have been issued by the learned Single Judge. The aforesaid arguments raised by Mr. Lamdharia have been amply supported by the Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Senior Standing Counsel for U.T. Chandigarh. Mr. Kaushal has made reference to the election programme dated 16.8.2011 which shows that notice of the election was to be issued on 16.8.2011 (R-1). 3. Mr. Rahul Sharma learned counsel for the writ petitioners- respondent Nos.6 to 12 has not been able to controvert the aforesaid submission. 4. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The writ petition filed by respondent Nos. 6 to 12 is dismissed. We saddled the writ L.P.A. No. 1732 of 2011 3 petitioner-respondent Nos.6 to 12 with costs of `10000/- which shall be deposited with the Legal Services Authority, U.T. Chandigarh. However, before parting we notice one submission, which had been made by Mr. Kaushal, that the appeal preferred by the appellant is fixed for final arguments today and it is likely to be decided within 2 days thereafter. The notification for fresh election programme shall be issued immediately after the disposal of the appeal. 5. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M.KUMAR) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE October 31,2011 (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) nk JUDGE