Civil Writ Petition No. 19272 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 19272 of 2009 Date of Decision: 1.10.2009 Raj Pal Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Pardeep Solath, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Himanshu Raj, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Ramsh Hooda, Advocate for respondent No.5. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) On the complaint received, the Assistant Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Gurgaon, has noticed the following irregularities in the order dated 26.10.2009 (Annexure P11) and appointed the administrator:- “...1. There was no resolution with regard to the lifting of the earth by the side of the constructed roads in the society, wherein it has been mentioned that total amount of Rs.1,05,850/- were spent for 431 rounds of tractor-trolley @ Rs.350/- per trolley. After evaluation of the bills, it has been found that the same were not passed by the Managing Civil Writ Petition No. 19272 of 2009 2 Committee. The bills are almost in series i.e. bill No. 191 dated 19.12.2008 amounting to Rs.19,600/-, No. 192 dated 26.2.2008 amounting to Rs.18,900/-, No. 193 dated 3.3.2008 amounting to Rs.19,600/-, No. 199 dated 3.4.2008 amounting to Rs.18,550/- and No. 200 dated 20.4.2009 amounting to Rs.17,150/-, whereas the bills are issued after interval of one month, therefore, the Managing Committee has caused loss of Rs.1,01,285/- in excess to the Society. 2. The agenda No. 4 dated 15.2.2008 passed by the Managing Committee with regard to the Cable TV agreement was not cleared. Apart from this, the agenda No. 5 dated 10.5.2008 whereby the resolution was passed for Rs.145 + Service Tax for Cable T.V. in favour of Yadav Entertainment was not therein the Agenda note. In this manner, a loss of Rs.12,77,910/- for the period from 5.2.2008 to July 2009 caused to the Society. This office sent a notices No. 15570-73 dated 21.8.2009 and 15774-79 dated 21.8.2009 for the recovery to the Managing Committee. The Managing Committee was given opportunity to submit their stand, however, the reply of the Managing Committee of the Society was found unsatisfactory...” Civil Writ Petition No. 19272 of 2009 3 Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted wherein a report regarding irregularities was submitted. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued and the impugned order dated 26.10.2009 (Annexure P11) be quashed. A perusal of order (Annexure P11) shows that the Assistant Registrar, Co-operatives Societies, Gurgaon, had suspended the Managing Committee of the Maruti Employees Co-operative Group House Building Society Limited, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as “the Society”), for a period of six months. Since the period of six months is over, the Managing Committee already stands restored. Therefore, there is no need to quash the impugned order (Annexure P11). A further prayer, made in the present writ petition, is that the judgment dated 2.12.2009 (Annexure P13), whereby the order (Annexure 11) was upheld, be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations of irregularities and wrong payment were enquired into by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana at Panchkula, who had submitted his enquiry report dated 17.4.2009. It is submitted that the present Managing Committee of the Society is managing the affairs thereof. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 has submitted that the present Managing Committee has been indicted in the Enquiry Report, therefore, the same is liable to be removed/suspended. Learned counsel for the petitioner, to controvert this, has submitted that the General House of the Society is competent to take Civil Writ Petition No. 19272 of 2009 4 action against the Managing Committee qua the alleged irregularities. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, a submission has been made before this Court that it is the General House i.e. all the members of the Society, who are in the better position to adjudicate and take action against the Managing Committee in pursuance of the Enquiry Report dated 17.4.2009, submitted by the Joint Registrar Co- operative Societies Haryana. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the enquiry report shall be widely circulated and a photocopy thereof shall be given to each member of the Society, who, on issuance of the notice, may participate in the General House. Thereafter, the meeting of the General House shall be fixed and the agenda, so circulated, shall contain a resolution as to what action is to be taken against the Managing Committee, in view of the Enquiry Report. It is submitted that the General House may absolve the present Managing Committee or may take any action by majority vote. This proposal, made by learned counsel for the petitioner, is acceptable to learned counsel for respondent No.5. Mr. Himanshu Raj, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for respondents No.1 to 4, has expressed his agreement after obtaining the instructions from Mr. Yashpal Dahiya, Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Gurgaon. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of in the above terms and a direction is issued that within a period of six weeks, from today, a special meeting of the General House shall be convened by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Gurgaon. The parties have agreed that Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, Civil Writ Petition No. 19272 of 2009 5 who is present in the Court, shall act as an Observer. The remuneration of Mr. Goyal, as agreed between the parties, is assessed at Rs.15,000/-. It is also agreed that Raj Pal Singh, President of the Society shall pay Rs.10,000/- and R.P. Kaushik, respondent No.5, who is a member of the Society, shall pay Rs.5,000/-. The travelling expenses of Mr. Goyal are assessed at Rs.3,000/-, shall be borne out equally by both the parties. Since the present writ petition is disposed of in view of the statement made by learned counsel for the parties, which depicts broad consensus, therefore, the order (Annexure P11) and the judgment (Annexure P13) have lost their impact. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge October 1, 2010 “DK”