CWP No.105 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.105 of 2010 Date of decision: 07.01.2010 The Pancham Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. A.S. Khaira, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the order dated 26th October, 2009 (Annexure P-1), passed by Financial Commissioner Cooperation, Punjab i.e. respondent No.2, whereby he has remitted the case to Additional Registrar (I), Cooperative Societies, Punjab for deciding the same afresh by a well reasoned and speaking order. The petitioner is a Cooperative House Building Society formed in the year 1986. Last election of Managing Committee was held on 4th October, 2008. The election was conducted by Returning Officer, appointed by the Registrar. The contention of the petitioner in the present petition is that respondents No.6 to 10 were defaulters of the society and thus, not eligible to contest the election. Thus, their nomination papers were rejected by the Returning Officer. Against the rejection, they filed election petition before the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, pursuant to which notice was issued to the CWP No.105 of 2010 2 petitioner society as well as elected members, whereafter they also filed their respective replies. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Additional Registrar, the petitioner society preferred a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner Cooperation, stating therein that the Additional Registrar was continuing with the proceedings without deciding the preliminary objections first pertaining to maintainability of the petition as well as locus standi of respondents No.6 to 10. The revision petition was disposed of by the Financial Commissioner, vide the impugned order (Annexure P-1) whereby he directed the Additional Registrar to hear the parties and decide all the issues including the preliminary objections raised by the Society as well as the elected members by passing a well reasoned and speaking order. The petition was thus dismissed as premature and Additional Registrar was directed to decide the matter after taking into consideration all relevant factors. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order passed, on the ground that the Additional Registrar should have been directed to decide the preliminary issues first pertaining to maintainability of the election petition and locus standi of respondents No.6 to 10 to prefer the same. According to the counsel, the election petition was earlier preferred by respondents No.6 to 10 before Additional Registrar (Credit) Cooperative Societies, Punjab. The same was, however, withdrawn on 24.12.2008 without seeking permission to file a fresh one. Thereafter, the instant petition was preferred before Additional Registrar (D), Cooperative Societies and thus, the same was CWP No.105 of 2010 3 not maintainable. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. No order has been placed on record to show that before the instant election petition was preferred before the Additional Registrar, a similar petition was filed before Additional Registrar (Credit). In any case, the Financial Commissioner Cooperation Punjab has, vide the impugned order, directed the Additional Registrar to hear both the parties and take a decision after taking into consideration all relevant issues including preliminary objections. A perusal of the said order shows that it has been directed that a well reasoned and speaking order be passed in the matter. It is, thus, evident that the petitioner can raise all its objections including those pertaining to maintainability of election petition and locus standi of respondents No.6 to 10 to maintain the same before the Additional Registrar. Under the circumstances, I find no ground to issue the direction as prayed for by the petitioner Society. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any legal infirmity with the impugned order, passed by the Financial Commissioner Cooperation, Punjab. There is, thus, no ground to interfere in writ jurisdiction of this court. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE January 07, 2010 'rajpal'