IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.1388 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.4.2011 Anil Rao. -----Appellant. Vs. Asstt. Registrar, Coop. Societies, Rewari & others. -----Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. C.R. Dahiya, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Addl.A.G., Haryana for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. S.S. Dalal, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr. Ram Kumar Saini, Advocate for Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate for respondent No.5. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition against postponement of elections as directed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies under the provisions of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he was duly elected as President of the Cooperative Society on 28.11.2007 but in order to dislodge him, the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies adjourned the meeting on a false pretext that one of the members was missing. Action was initiated for fresh election which was L.P.A. No.1388 of 2010 illegal. The petition was opposed by disputing the averments in the writ petition and submitting that there was no proper meeting earlier and it became necessary to issue the impugned letter dated 28.11.2007 for a proper election. 3. Learned Single Judge after considering the pleadings and respective contentions held that there was no ground to interfere with order dated 28.11.2007 and the disputed question raised by the petitioner that earlier there was proper election, could not be adjudicated upon in writ proceedings. It was, thus, held that no interference of this Court was called for except to direct the Registrar to appoint a Presiding Officer afresh to hold a fair election. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. No doubt there are proceedings showing that the petitioner was duly elected but on the same day letter has been issued to the effect that a member was prevented from participation. There is, thus, a disputed question of fact to be adjudicated upon, for which forum of a writ petition may not be appropriate. In the circumstances, view taken by learned Single Judge that interference of this Court was not called for, cannot be held to be erroneous. 6. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE April 29, 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2