IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.17297 of 2008 Date of Decision: 28.10.2010 Nirmal Kanta and others. ....... Petitioners through Shri A.K.Chopra, Senior Advocate with Ms.Shilpa Malhotra, Advocate. Versus The Registrar, Cooperative Societies,U.T., Chandigarh and others. ....... Respondent nos. 1 & 3 through Mrs.Lisa Gill, Advocate. Respondent no.2 through Shri Narender Hooda, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. The instant petition was filed with the following substantive prayers:- “(i) issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to include the name of the petitioners in the Voter List of the Pink Rose Cooperative House Building Ist Society Ltd. so as to enable the petitioners to cast their votes and contest the C.W.P.No.17297 of 2008 -2- .... elections of the Managing Committee of the respondent no.2 -Society scheduled to be held on 15.10.2008; and (ii)issue a writ of certiorari quashing the Election Notice, Annexure P-17 dated 27.9.2008 in so far as it does not include the name of the petitioners in the List of Voters.” The counsel for the respondent no.2-Society, at the very out- set,contended that there is no dispute regarding the nominations of petitioner nos. 1 & 2. Having said thus, the grievance of these petitioners stands satisfied. The only surviving dispute is regarding petitioner no.3, who claims to be a nominated member under Shri Bhupinder Singh Bedi, who was the original member and who has since expired on 09.05.2006. Initially, Shri Bhupinder Singh Bedi had nominated his wife -Smt.Raminder Kaur as his nominee. Petitioner no.3 claims that his nomination has been wrongly questioned and he has been erroneously debarred from taking part in the elections of the respondent-society which were scheduled to be held on 15.10.2008 and were to remain valid for one year. The question of the validity of the election process and debarring of petitioner no.3 from participating therein has largely been rendered infructuous for the simple reason that the elections have already been held and the term of the elected body has since expired, but broadly the question regarding the validity of his nomination still survives and needs to be answered in this petition. The grievance of the counsel for respondent no.2-Society C.W.P.No.17297 of 2008 -3- .... against the nomination of petitionerno.3 is that he has obtained this nomination on the strength of forgery and thus, cannot be recognised as a nominated member of late Shri Bhupinder Singh Bedi. Reference has been made to the record book of the respondent-society which has been annexed to the written statement, to contend that there have been manipulations and interpolations in the record. This apparently seems to be the reason to deny and question the nomination of petitioner no.3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The question regarding the interpolations or manipulations of the record is totally irrelevant to the controversy which has been raised by petitioner no.3. A limited question regarding the validity of his nomination is the only issue that has to be determined in the instant case. Both the parties are at ad idem on the question that the membership of late Shri Bhupinder Singh Bedi was in accordance with law and there was no dispute regarding his membership of the respondent- Society. There is also no dispute regarding the nomination made by Shri Bhupinder Singh Bedi in favour of his wife-Smt.Raminder Kaur at the initial stage. Respondent no.2-Society questions the nomination of petitioner no.3 only on the ground that Annexure P1 on which reliance has been paced to claim nomination, is a result of forgery. With vehemence at his command, learned counsel for respondent no.2-Society contended that the contents of Annexure P1 reveals that Shri Bhupinder Singh Bedi, while making nomination in favour of petitioner no.3, has referred to a fact that C.W.P.No.17297 of 2008 -4- .... the society had been allotted land in Sector 49-D, Chandigarh. This annexure was purportedly written on 1.6.2000, whereas the allotment came into existence for the first time on 19.11.2001. On the strength of this document, he contended that the fraud is writ large on the face of it and no person making a nomination in favour of another person at that point of time would imagine the land being allotted in a particular sector when such a fact was never in existence. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent-Society sounds attractive on the face of it, but if one were to look deeper, then such an argument necessarily has to be repelled. There is no dispute about the fact that Shri Bhupinder Singh Bedi had nominated his wife – Smt. Raminder Kaur in the first instance. The nomination in favour of petitioner no.3 has not been challenged by Smt.Raminder Kaur and rather she has supported his case to say that such a nomination made by Shri Bedi is valid. It is only the wife of Shri Bhupinder Singh Bedi, who could have grievance against the nomination having been made in favour of petitioner no.3 as it would have amounted to depriving her of his share in the property as well as in the respondent-Society. For the reason that she supported the case of petitioner no.3, it is evident that she has no grievance against him being nominated to the share of Shri Bedi, her late husband. The respondent- Society, therefore, has no option but to accept petitioner noi.3 as nominee of Shri Bhupinder Singh Bedi. Much has been said about the wrong doings and alleged forgery made by petitioner no.3 to claim nomination. I am afraid, this is not C.W.P.No.17297 of 2008 -5- .... germane to the controversy for the reason stated above. The respondent no.2- Society, if has any grievance against the conduct of petitioner no.3, it has a right to proceed against him in accordance with law, but in so far as his nomination is concerned, the same cannot be denied to him. The writ petition is, thus, allowed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. October 28,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge