IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4066 of 2009 Date of Decision: March 17, 2009 The Rajhans Co-operative Group Housing Society Limited (Regd.), Panchkula .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Haryana Urban Development Authority & Another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This civil writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Rajhans Co-operative Group Housing Society Limited (Regd.), Panchkula (for short, `the Society’) through its President praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant necessary permission for increasing the number of members from 20 to 32. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner-Society was allotted plot for allotment of land to 20 members. The Society filed an application/ representation praying for increase in the number of members to 32. The application/ CWP No.4066 of 2009 [2] representation has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. Learned counsel contends that the applications of similar other persons/ Societies have been entertained and number of members increased. I have considered the issue. It seems that initially there were 20 members in the petitioner-Society. Subsequently, so as to accommodate 12 new members, an application for increase in the number of members was filed on 3.4.2008 as is evident from Annexure P-2. It seems that the application is still pending and no decision has been taken by the respondents. Annexures P-4 and P-5 are the orders passed by the authorities whereunder the number of members in a society was allowed to be increased. Considering the issue, I am of the opinion that the matter can be decided without issuing notice to the respondents. Respondent No.1 shall deal with representation/ application dated 3.4.2008 (Annexure P-2) and pass appropriate orders as required by law within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is made clear that anything said hereinabove is not an opinion on the facts of the case and the application/ representation (Annexure P-2) would be dealt with in accordance with law. CWP No.4066 of 2009 [3] The petition is disposed of in the above terms. (AJAI LAMBA) March 17, 2009 JUDGE avin