IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 679 of 2010 with CWPs No. 790 and 915 of 2010. Decided on: April 9, 2010 (i) CWP No. 679 of 2010 Smt. Rajani Thakural and others ….. Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …… Respondents. (ii) CWP No. 790 of 2010 Ram Murti Punia and others ….. Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …… Respondents. (iii) CWP No. 915 of 2010 Gurbaksh Singh and others ….. Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes / No. For the Petitioners : M/s Manjeet Singh & VB Verma, Advocate in CWPs No. 679 & 790 of 2010 . Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate in CWP No. 915 of 2010. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Dalip Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate for respondents No. 6 and 7. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) A Housing Society was registered at Baddi in the year 1984. It is submitted that except the actual housing every thing has been done by the 2 Society during the last 26 years. The matter came before this Court in an Election Petition though there is no activity with regard to the housing. There appears to be very serious activity with regard to the management of the Society and there are several disputes with regard to the exclusion from membership etc. at a time when an election was proposed to be held. Pursuant to interim order passed by this Court, it is seen that election has actually taken place but the results have not been officially announced so much so the elected Committee has not assumed the charge. But in view of the serious factual disputes, we are of the view that the matter should be considered by an appropriate authority constituted under the provisions of the H.P. Cooperative Societies Act. This Court also took note of the fact that at the time of the election, the time period of elected body was already over and the Society was managed by the nominated members, who are otherwise members of the Society. Hence, in view of the serious allegations raised in the writ petitions, we directed the Registrar to take appropriate action for appointment of a non-member Administrator under Section 37 of the Act. Learned Addl. Advocate General submits that the departmental officer has taken over the management of the Society as the Administrator. Some of the counsel appearing before us submits that this Court may also look into the affairs of the Society during the last few years on the report of the Administrator. We do not think that this Court at this stage should go into those matters. However, we make it clear that it will be open to the aggrieved members to pursue the matter in appropriate proceedings before the appropriate Forum, if necessary before this Court at a later stage. However, there will be a direction to the Administrator to conduct an appropriate enquiry into the affairs of the Society and also take appropriate action in accordance with law in order to safeguard the interest 3 of the members of the Society and in public interest. This shall be done within a period of six months from today. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of relegating the petitioners to the Forum under the Act to adjudicate on the election disputes. The said Forum will also take into consideration the steps already taken for the election and the results if required will be announced, after obtaining appropriate orders from the Forum. The authority considering the validity of election will also take into consideration that few members have been elected unopposed in the election and that there was no opposition so as to avoid polling in respect of the said members. However, that fact shall not stand in the way of the authority considering the validity of the election in respect of all the contentions raised by the parties. The writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice April 9, 2010 (Justice R.B. Misra), (rks/tr) Judge.