IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.19413 of 2007 Romesh Chander Batra ......Petitioner(s) Versus UT Chandigarh and others ...Respondent(s) C.W.P.No.2061 of 2008 Raj Kumar Sangwan ......Petitioner(s) Versus UT Chandigarh and others ...Respondent(s) Date of decision: 17.10.2008 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Kamal K Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. S.S. Dalal, Advocate for respondent No.3. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL,J(ORAL) This order shall dispose of the two above mentioned writ petitions since common questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions. The facts are being taken from CWP No.19413 of 2007. Admittedly, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 25.1.2005 (Annexure P.12) passed by respondent No.3 expelling the petitioner from membership of the Society is pending before the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Socieites, UT, Chandigarh-respondent No.2. During the pendency of this appeal, present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner apprehending that the flat, which was due for allotment to him may be allotted to someone else. While issuing notice of motion, this Court passed the following order: “The petitioner was expelled from the Society, vide order passed by the President of the Society on January 25, 2005 (Annexure P.12). The petitioner has filed an appeal against this order which is still pending. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner apprehends that the flat which was due for allotment to him may be allotted to some one else. C.W.P.No.19413 of 2007 #2# Notice of motion for 11.3.2008. In the meanwhile, pending the appeal interest of the petitioner shall be protected and a flat be kept reserved for him pending decision of the appeal.” We have heard learned counsel for the parties. After hearing counsel for the parties and in view of the fact that the aforesaid appeal is still pending before respondent No.2, we dispose of this petition with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the said appeal expeditiously preferably within a period of three months in accordance with law and during the pendency of the appeal, the aforesaid interim order passed by this Court will remain operative. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE October 17, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE