Civil Writ Petition No.491 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:- 12.1.2011 Guru Nanak Dev University Teacher's Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Amritsar ....Petitioner Versus Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jallandhar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) The compendium of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that petitioner Guru Nanak Dev University Teacher's Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Amritsar (hereinafter to be referred as “the petitioner Society”) was duly registered, vide resolution dated 18.12.2009, under the provisions of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (for brevity “the Act”). The petitioner-Society purchased the land from Preet Inder Singh Gill, late husband of Smt.Ranbir Kaur Gill (respondent No.4) and allotted four plot bearing Nos.26, 40, 74 and 27 to him and the members of his family as per agreement. They have deposited the requisite amount of the plots with the petitioner-Society and completed all formalities. Subsequently, the allotment of the plots was cancelled by the petitioner-Society, vide resolution dated 31.1.2002 2. As luck would have been, Preet Inder Singh Gill, husband of respondent No.4 had died. After his death, respondent No.4 moved a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar that the petitioner-Society is not giving the possession of the plots to her and her family members. The Deputy Commissioner forwarded the same to the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Civil Writ Petition No.491 of 2011 2 Societies. The Assistant Registrar conducted the inquiry and submitted his report in favour of Ranbir Kaur private respondent No.4 to the Deputy Commissioner. Since the report of AR was not implemented, so, the private respondent-allottee moved another application dated 1.4.2009 to the AR, who, in pursuance thereof, appointed respondent No.3 as Arbitrator. The arbitrator announced his award on 12.6.2009 (Annexure P2) in favour of Ranbir Kaur (respondent No.4) and directed the petitioner-Society to give possession of the plots to her and her family members. 3. Aggrieved by the order of Arbitrator, the petitioner-Society filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well by respondent No.2, vide order dated 25.11.2009 (Annexure P3). The revision instituted by the petitioner-Society was also dismissed by the revisional authority, by way of impugned order dated 2.6.2010 (Annexure P4). 4. The petitioner-Society still did not feel satisfied and filed the instant writ petition challenging the impugned orders (Annexures P2 to P4), invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition. 6. However, the main arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner- Society that the complaint filed by respondent No.4 cannot be treated as arbitration petition and as the arbitrator did not follow the procedure and announced the award in haste, therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed, are neither tenable nor the observations of this Court in case Mathra Dass v. The state of Punjab and others 1975 P.L.J. 42 are at all applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein it was observed that the award which does not state points of difference for decision and item of dispute is invalid, but same will not come to the rescue of the petitioner-society as in the instant case, the arbitrator has duly set out Civil Writ Petition No.491 of 2011 3 and decided the real controversy between the parties in this relevant connection. 7. As is evident from the record that petitioner-Society purchased land from the husband of respondent No.4 and it (petitioner-Society) allotted the plots for dwelling units as per the agreement as admitted by the Society in its written reply. Strange enough, the petitioner Society without issuing any notice to the allottee, without observing the due procedure required to be followed by the Managing Committee and General House, after receiving the approval of Assistant Registrar, without any basis and in a highly arbitrary and illegal manner cancelled the allotment of plots of respondent No.4 and her family members. 8. After the death of her husband, respondent No.4 moved a petition/complaint to Deputy Commissioner, who referred the matter to Assistant Registrar. The Assistant Registrar conducted the inquiry and sent his report to the Deputy Commissioner. As no action was taken on the inquiry report, therefore, respondent No.4 filed another application dated 1.4.2009 for appointment of arbitrator before the Assistant Registrar, who in pursuance thereof, appointed respondent No.3 as arbitrator. Therefore, it cannot possibly be saith that the appointment of arbitrator is wrong, as urged on behalf of petitioner-society. Moreover, any such dispute between a member, past member or the person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member and the society can be raised and decided as contemplated under section 55 of the Act. 9. The next argument of learned counsel for petitioner-society that since respondent No.4 and her family members were not the teachers, so, they were not eligible to become members, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. There is no specific provision in the bye-laws of the society debarring the private respondent and her family members to become members of the Society. Moreover, they were duly admitted as legitimate members of the society itself as per rules made by the petitioner-society. 10. As regards the last contention, that the petitioner Society was not Civil Writ Petition No.491 of 2011 4 duly represented before the authorities. In this respect, the revisional Court inter- alia observed as under:- “The Counsel for the Respondent during his arguments further stated that due to failure of initiating any proceedings on the Enquiry Report, an application dated 01.04.2009 was filed by Smt.Ranbir Kaur Gill to Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, on which the matter was referred to the Arbitrator by him. Doctor Sh.Amarjit Singh Sidhu appeared before Arbitrator on behalf of the Society and he presented the case of the Society in writing. Later on an appeal was filed on behalf of the Society. In this manner, the Society contested the whole case. After perusal of the record, the case was decided by the Arbitrator, therefore, no evidence was required. Petitioner cannot say that the Society was not heard. There was no illegality in the process of service. Doctor Amarjit Singh Sidhu never stated that he has not appeared on behalf of the Society. It is admitted that the plot was allotted but the possession was not given. Resolution dated 20.11.2009 clarifies the stand of the Society that Doctor Amarjit Singh Sidhu had resolution for representing the Society in the case. In this manner, he had right to represent the Society and the Society was given full opportunity to be heard and the record was perused. There is no refusal on behalf of the Society for the allotment of the plots and Society has no right to cancel the allotment of the plots. Arbitrator award and the appellate order are liable to be upheld. At the time of deciding the revision it has to be seen whether the courts below have committed any illegality or not. It is clear in the present case that injustice has been done to the members of the Gill family and they are aggrieved by the same. After the passage of long time from the allotment of the plots, Society has no right to cancel the allotment because it is only after the fulfillment all the formalities by the Members, allotment of the plots is done by the Society. Shri K.L.Dua, Advocate submitted that the enquiry conducted by the Inquiry officer, Arbitration award and the appellate order has been rightly passed in accordance with law and further stated that the direction given by the different courts to the society for handing over the possession of the plots to Smt.Ranbir Kaur has not been complied by the society. Smt. Ranbir Kaur who is a widow, have been unnecessarily involved in the litigation. Resolution dated 31.01.2002 through which Membership and allotment of the plots is shown to have been cancelled was never brought into their notice and no agenda of fifteen days was issued for passing this resolution. A perusal the copy of the resolution, it can be Civil Writ Petition No.491 of 2011 5 construed that proceeding of this resolution has been incorporated on the blank pages left in the proceeding book. Because there is no uniformity in the signatures. If this resolution would have been passed on 31.01.2002 then it would have produced before the Lower Courts. Whereas it was never produced. This resolution has been incorporated by the favorites of Doctor Amarjit Singh Sidhu under his president ship. In fact, if in reality, a general body meeting has been conducted then its information should have been given through beat of drum and by affixing the agenda on the main work places in the area of the operation of the Society or by getting the signatures of the Members on the Register as per provisions of Appendix “C” (Rule 23) Part-II 1 & 2 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, 1963. Therefore, it can be said that the resolution was never passed because at the time of cancellation of plots no legal formalities were complied with and there was no valid reasons for passing that. These illegal proceedings were conducted for the benefit of certain person and property dealers for their personal gains. Therefore, this resolution is liable to be set aside being illegal. Shri K.L.Dua, Advocate further stated that resolution dated 20.09.2009 shows that Late Mr.Gill and his family are members of the Society. If there is any technical error in enrolling the Members then it is the responsibility of the Society and not of the Gill family. He was allotted four plots by the Society. Society has received development charges amounting to Rs.10,000/- per plot. Smt. Ranbir Kaur and her family members are eligible Members of the Society. He prayed that resolution dated 31.01.2002 should be set aside. Order of the Lower Court and that of Appellate Court should be upheld, possession of the four plots should be given and the revision petition should be dismissed.” 11. Meaning thereby, having considered and appreciated the entire relevant material/evidence brought on record by the parties in the right perspective, the authorities below have recorded the well-reasoned finding of fact that the cancellation of allotment of plots of respondent No.4 and her family members by the petitioner-society was not only arbitrary but illegal as well. Such well-reasoned and well-articulated findings of fact based on the evidence, cannot possibly be interfered with and the remaining arguments involving factual matrix, cannot be re-appreciated, while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same are Civil Writ Petition No.491 of 2011 6 illegal and perverse. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so as to take a contrary view, than that of well reasoned decision already arrived at by the authorities below, in this relevant behalf. 12. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 13. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 12.1.2011 Judge AS