Civil Writ Petition No. 22 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 22 of 2010 Date of Decision: 27.7.2010 Rakesh Mohindera …Petitioner Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Sukkhdip Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sanjay Kaushal, Advocate Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Kamal K. Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4. Mr. G.P.S. Ball, Advocate for the G.P.A. Holder. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, a prayer has been made that order dated 29.12.2009, passed by the Secretary, Co-operation, Union Territory, Chandigarh, communicated vide memo No. 364 dated 31.12.2009 by respondents No.3 and 4 (Annexure P8) keeping in abeyance the election of the Shivalik Co-operative House Building (1st) Society Limited, Sector 49, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “the Society”) be set aside and the respondents be directed to restore the Civil Writ Petition No. 22 of 2010 2 elected Managing Committee of the Society. It is not disputed that election programme (Annexure P6) was issued and after following a due procedure, the election was to be held on 8.1.2010. Thereafter, this election programme was also approved vide Annexure P7. Once the election programme was set into motion, certain persons, holding general power of attorney on behalf of the members of the Co-operative Society, had submitted a representation to the Secretary, Co-operation, Chandigarh Administration, who had passed the following order on 29.12.2009:- “...The election be kept in abeyance till further orders. The factual report on these elections be submitted first” Learned senior standing counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 has very fairly submitted that the order, passed by the Secretary, Co- operation, Chandigarh Administration, cannot be defended, and the following submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be answered in the right earnest:- 1. The order was non-speaking one. 2. The principles of natural justice were not followed. 3. The Secretary, Co-operation, U.T. Chandigarh, has no jurisdiction to pass the order. 4. Once the election process was set into motion, it could not be stayed. 5. All the officials, namely Assistant Civil Writ Petition No. 22 of 2010 3 Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Registrar, Co-operative Societies, who had the jurisdiction to resolve the dispute, were bypassed. This Court appreciates the fair stand taken by learned senior standing counsel for respondents No.1 and 2, who has stated that the impugned order will be withdrawn forthwith and thereafter, after following due procedure, the election programme shall be published/notified within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition be disposed of in terms of the statement made by learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Ordered accordingly. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge July 27, 2010 “DK”