Civil Writ Petition No.19894 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 8.4.2011 Lt.Col.Lakhbir Singh Bedi (Retd.) ...Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Petitioner in person. Mr.Narender Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent Nos.1 to 3, 5 & 6. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) The epitome of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that in the wake of petition filed by the petitioner Lt.Col.Lakhbir Singh Bedi (Retd.), the Deputy Registrar (Head-quarter) (for brevity “DR”) disqualified the members of the Managing Committee of Mahander Vihar Co-op. Housing Maintenance Society Ltd. (respondent No.4) (for short “the respondent-Society”), by virtue of order dated 2.8.2010 (Annexure P6). Thereafter, not only that, the petitioner filed the applications (Annexures P7 and P8) for executing the order, but he also filed the application/complaints (Annexures P9 to P11) to take action for committing the alleged fraud by the Managing Committee of the respondent-Society. 2. Aggrieved by the order (Annexure P6), the Managing Committee of the respondent-Society filed the appeal (Annexure P4) and the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies (respondent No.5) (for brevity “appellate authority”) only issued summon/notice (Annexure P5) to the petitioner as well as to DR to appear and attend the proceedings of the appeal on 16.12.2010. 3. Although the appellate authority only issued notice/summon to petitioner intimating the date of hearing of appeal, but still he did not feel satisfied Civil Writ Petition No.19894 of 2010 2 and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned notice/summon (Annexure P5), invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. The petitioner, claiming himself to be an Advocate, appeared in person and filed the vague written arguments, mentioning therein the history of events happened during the course of functioning of the Managing Committee and has only stated that the appellate authority has acted in an arbitrary manner in entertaining the appeal and wrongly granted the stay order, no vakalatnama was filed by the Advocate of the members of the respondent-Society and as the contents of the appeal were not verified, therefore, the same is not maintainable before the appellate authority. 5. After going through the written arguments and the record, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this context. 6. What is not disputed here is that the Managing Committee of the respondent-Society has filed the appeal against the order (Annexure P6) and the appellate authority has only issued the notice/summon (Annexure P5) to the petitioner and DR, intimating the date of hearing of the appeal and nothing else. The Managing Committee has statutory right to file the appeal. Whether the parties are duly represented or the appeal is competent or not and all other points raised in the written arguments by the petitioner, would be the moot points, to be decided by the appellate authority. Petitioner is a retired army officer but he appears to be on a wrong-front. Instead of prosecuting the present pre-mature writ petition, he ought to have contested the appeal (Annexure P4) already pending before the appellate authority. Since no adverse order whatsoever has yet been passed against the petitioner, so, no relief can be granted to him at this stage in the exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 7. Sequelly, once the matter is sub-judice before the appellate authority, then possibly, no direction can be issued to respondents to decide the Civil Writ Petition No.19894 of 2010 3 application/complaints (Annexures P7 to P11) as well. The petitioner appears to have been misguided and has attempted to file the present frivolous writ petition in this relevant connection. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such with costs. 9. Needless to mention here that petitioner would be at liberty to pursue his appropriate remedies after the final adjudication of statutory appeal if he is, in any manner, aggrieved by the subsequent events/action of the respondent-Society in this behalf. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 8.4.2011 Judge AS