CWP No. 17874 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CWP No. 17874 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.07.2010 Sudhir Mahajan ....Petitioner Versus U.T., Chandigarh and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Harish Khanna, Advocate for the petitioner. ... Alok Singh, J.(Oral) Present petition is filed invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India thereby challenging order dated 22.9.2009 passed by the Advisor to the Administrator, UT, Chandigarh – respondent No.1 and further seeking writ of mandamus commanding respondents No.2 to 8 to allot the petitioner one dwelling unit in the society out of the houses, which are lying vacant in the society. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner is a substituted member of the society against the surrendered flats by the CWP No. 17874 of 2009 2 original allottees. Sale certificate was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner has made deposits with the society after taking finance from the bank; the Chandigarh Administration floated a scheme known as “the Chandigarh allotment of land to Cooperative House Building Societies Scheme, 1991 with a view to promote private housing and utilization of land by constructing multistory structures generally known as flats. The Chandigarh Administration after due screening and after taking earnest money from the eligible members through their respective society, allotted land to the society – respondent No.8; the society has constructed 597 dwelling units. Few members surrendered their flats and their units/flats are lying vacant; the society was competent to substitute new members in accordance with the bylaws and the petitioner was inducted as substituted member in the society. Petitioner was not allotted any dwelling unit despite having deposited entire payment. Petitioner approached the Registrar, Cooperative Societies for the redressal of his grievance. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, vide order dated 4.8.2009 rejected the claim of the petitioner by holding that vide office memo dated 18.12.2003, Cooperative Societies were directed not to make any substitution till the finalization of the substitution policy and any substitution made by the society will be in violation of the communication. Feeling aggrieved from the order dated 4.8.2009, petitioner filed revision under Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 before the Administrator, UT, Chandigarh. Revision of the petitioner also came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 23.9.2009. Main ground to challenge the impugned order dated 23.9.2009 as taken in the writ petition is that petitioner is the substituted member of CWP No. 17874 of 2009 3 the society against the surrendered flats. The resolution dated 16.11.2003 substituting the petitioner was neither challenged nor set aside by any Court, hence petitioner is entitled for the allotment of the dwelling unit. Claim of the petitioner is refuted by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner was inducted as substituted member along with 7 others vide resolution dated 16.11.2003 and in view of the fact that the resolution was neither challenged before this Court nor before any competent authority, hence petitioner is entitled for allotment of the dwelling unit in view of the fact that the petitioner has paid entire money after getting it financed from the bank and share certificate was also issued to the petitioner. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I find that the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, UT, Chandigarh has issued letter dated 5.10.2001 (Annexure P-8) to respondent No.8 – society that fresh enrollment may be undertaken as per the bylaws of the society and the case for substitution be sent to it for clearance. Undisputedly, case of the petitioner making him as substituted member, was never sent to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies for clearance. I also find that the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies vide letter dated 18.12.2003 and 6.1.2004 was pleased to direct the society not to substitute the members till the substitution policy is framed and further directing that on the failure to comply with the directions, the entire responsibility will lie with the Managing Committee of the respective society. In view of the letters of the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, dated 18.12.2003 and 6.1.2004, it was not open to the society – respondent No.8 to induct the petitioner as a substituted member till the substitution CWP No. 17874 of 2009 4 policy is framed by the Chandigarh Administration. Hence, induction of the petitioner as a substituted member seems to be against the directions issued from time to time by the Registrar and the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies. In view of the fact that the petitioner was inducted as substituted member in gross violation of the orders dated 18.12.2003 and 6.1.2004 issued by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies and the list of the newly inducted members was never sent for clearance to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies in compliance with the order dated 5.10.2001, hence on the basis of the resolution of the society dated 16.11.2003, petitioner is not entitled for any allotment. Petition is devoid of merit and hence, is dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 14.07.2010 sk.